Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday, 30 March.

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday, 30 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Live Animal Exports

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received over the past 12 months about the export of live animals; and if he will make a statement. [13874]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): Over the past 12 months we have received approximately 90,000 items of correspondence on the transport of live animals.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware of reports that English farmers have been using the Scottish port of Cairnryan as a back door for the export of veal calves to the continent via the Irish Republic? The animals are apparently transported by road from the south of England to Cairnryan, shipped over to Northern Ireland, smuggled across the border into the Irish Republic, then shipped to the continent so that, by the time they reach their eventual destination, some of them have travelled more than 2,500 miles. Will the Minister consult the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland and the Irish Minister for Agriculture to try to put a stop to that barbaric practice?

Mrs. Browning: I certainly will, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will provide me with evidence to help me look into the matter.

Sir Roger Moate: Is my hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) voted in 1975, when the last Labour Government reintroduced the export of live animals? Is it not important to understand that we are discussing not exports as such,

but the importance, pursued by the Government, of ensuring the maximum welfare of animals in all forms of transit?

Mrs. Browning: Indeed, my hon. Friend is right. The welfare of animals is our prime concern, which is why we take seriously claims that the rules are being violated. However, my hon. Friend is right: it is a legal trade and, under good welfare conditions, we believe that it should continue. That is why we are working actively to ensure that not only do we have good standards but that standards in the rest of Europe are improved to our level.

Mr. Morley: The Minister will be aware that one of the problems of the live animal trade is the definition of animals in the treaty of Rome as "agricultural products". At the forthcoming intergovernmental conference in 1996, will she argue for redefining animals as "sentient beings" as a matter of principle at this stage?

Mrs. Browning: At this stage, we are prepared to look at reasoned arguments about the definition of live animals, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance on that today.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the welfare of animals is important, the livelihoods of farmers should come first? Would not it be a good thing if the House showed the same concern for farmers and farm workers, many of whom in my constituency are now losing their jobs as a result of demonstrations, as was shown recently in the case of fishermen?

Mrs. Browning: I hope that the House and my hon. Friend agree that the majority of farmers are the very people who care about animal welfare. They not only look after them well on farms but they, too, are concerned when welfare standards are violated in transporting animals. I agree with my hon. Friend that we all deplore violence and I hope that those who wish to make their views known—I know that some of them hold them passionately—will do so in a law-abiding and peaceful way.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and others should not make allegations in the House which they cannot substantiate? Will she take it from me that the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department faxes to me the records of live cattle that move from Scotland to my constituency and the port of Larne? This is the first time that I have ever heard of the falsehood which I nail in the House today.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the need for proof, which is why I invited the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who mentioned the matter this afternoon, to supply me with evidence. We take very seriously falsification of documentation or other matters that are not legal in connection with animal transport. However, I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West can substantiate what he has said today, because my officials are kept very busy with that matter, and I do not want their time to be wasted on a wild goose chase.

CAP Fraud

Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of fraud in the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [13875]

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the proportion of expenditure under the common agricultural policy in Europe which is lost in fraud. [13883]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Government are vigorously pressing for action to combat fraud. There is no very reliable estimate of what is lost in fraud, for obvious reasons, but action to counter it is becoming much more effective.

Mrs. Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that satellite technology is vital in combatting fraud, as has been evidenced recently by the use of imagery to detect potential overpayments on durum wheat to Italy? Is he aware that the national remote sensing centre this morning met representatives of the Department of Trade and the British national space centre to consider the further potential of using satellites for detecting fraud and in agricultural management? Will he undertake to meet representatives of the DTI and to study the NRSC report so that we can continue to exploit this potential, which is valuable British expertise?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right, and gives an example of a real case—the attempted durum wheat fraud in Italy. The interesting thing is that the satellite information was able to prevent the fraud, which is better than pursuing it afterwards. All the member states, apart from Luxembourg, which perhaps is small enough not to need satellites to look at its territory, were either using remote sensing as a control tool by 1994 or, as in the United Kingdom, doing trials on it. My officials and the officials of the intervention board are indeed in close touch with the British national space centre, so progress is being made on the matter; it is a very good technique.

Mr. Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend make every effort to ensure that other member states in the European Community attach the same importance as we do to tackling fraud in the CAP? Will he further ensure that, when large-scale fraud is uncovered, member states are subjected to heavy fines, and that they are made to pay those fines in full?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. In the most recent year for which the accounts are completely closed, there was £1.2 billion of disallowance against member states, which is a large sum of money. I am proud to say that only £2 million of that related to the United Kingdom. There are beginning to be serious penalties and we welcome that, but there is more to do.

Mr. Tyler: May I put a little more pressure on the Minister regarding milk quota in other member states? He will have noticed, in the debate on Tuesday, that Members on both sides of the House expressed anxiety about both fraud and inadequate control mechanisms, especially in relation to milk quota. I know that that may involve long discussions, but I hope that he will be able to give us a

progress report and also say what initiatives he intends to take here to deal with the current milk quota crisis that is affecting us so badly.

Mr. Waldegrave: Several different issues are involved in what the hon. Gentleman says. First, there is the issue of the proper enforcement of milk quotas in other countries. Very large disallowances against Greece, Spain and Italy have been enforced, and the Commissioner has to report to the Council of Ministers by 31 March on the position in those countries before we approve any payments to them for the future.
In this country, we would like quotas to be tradeable across boundaries, which would help us. I am arguing for that in the Community.

Dr. Strang: Does the Minister agree with the chief agricultural official at the European Court of Auditors who said that fraud was inherent in the CAP? Is it not clear that, as long as we are taking surplus farm production into state intervention, and as long as the movement of agricultural commodities across the European frontier can attract large export rebate subsidies, we shall always have a major fraud problem?
Is fraud not another reason why we should end state intervention buying and export subsidies, and replace those arrangements with other means for supporting our agricultural industry?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that many of the range of quantitative controls introduced after MacShany are vulnerable to fraud. That is one reason among many for getting back to a much freer market. We had fraud in the old days under the deficiency payment system. Whenever one is involved in the business of paying people to produce goods, one is vulnerable to fraud, which is why it is ultimately better to leave the business to the market.

Marketing Grant Schemes

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to improve the processing and marketing grant schemes. [13876]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): Outstanding interest has been shown in the new scheme since its launch last October, and waiting times for grant applications have been halved.

Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fruit industry is important in Hastings and Rye? Is he further aware that, however much we have helped that sector with the new grants, it is still being undercut by imports from abroad? What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that there is a fair market? What further steps is he taking to provide variety in the agri-food industry?

Mr. Jack: Ten of the projects that made successful applications were from the fruit and vegetable sector. The thrust of the processing and marketing grant scheme is to try to improve the efficiency of the fruit and vegetable industry. The scheme provides an opportunity to provide the primary producer with great rewards and to improve


the marketing and competitiveness of British-produced fruit and vegetables, thus achieving the effect that my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Simpson: What success has the Minister had in encouraging United Kingdom meat processing to replace the export of livestock? How would he set about offsetting the UK's poor performance in promoting its own produce in comparison with New Zealand and Denmark?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. So far, out of the 22 projects that have qualified for £4.7 million under the scheme, seven are from the meat processing industry. The improved meat quality, improved hygiene and improved butchery standards are some of the criteria that have enabled those seven projects to gain that form of help. That backs up some of the excellent work that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is currently doing to encourage the marketing of home-produced veal.

Set-aside Land

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in the EC to allow land set aside under farm woodland and agri-environmental schemes to be counted against farmers' set-aside obligations. [13877]

Mr. Luff: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in the EU to enable farm woodland to be counted against farmers' set-aside obligations. [13882]

Mr. Waldegrave: Following the United Kingdom's campaign, the Commission has produced proposals to allow that. They are under discussion at a technical level and we are pressing for their early adoption.

Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the woodland planted under the farm woodland premium scheme so far has been disappointing? Would it not be more justifiable if farmers could use set-aside money for schemes that benefit the environment and the countryside?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the purpose of the change for which we have been arguing—that is true of both legs of his argument. We believe that many farmers have not come forward for the woodland scheme because they do not want to undertake that as well as the set-aside scheme. If joining the woodland scheme counted as set-aside, that would boost the woodland scheme. We do not like set-aside and would much rather not have it, but that move would give us the opportunity to do something useful with set-aside, and improve the environment.

Mr. Luff: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the step that he has just announced is important and would no doubt assist the uptake of forestry and other agri-environmental schemes? Can he reassure me that the administration of the farm woodland premium scheme

will continue to be as efficient as possible, bearing in mind the problems of two of my constituents to which I recently drew the Ministry's attention?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have seen one of the schemes involving Mr. Day and I shall look at the other. We make every effort to be as efficient as possible. I endorse the first part of my hon. Friend's contribution.

Mr. Tipping: While the movement within the European Union is extremely helpful and will help community forests such as the Greenwood in Nottinghamshire, will the Minister take another look at the grant available to land owners because that lack of financial incentive is holding up community forests?

Mr. Waldegrave: That matter was reviewed relatively recently. We believe that the grants are adequate, but we shall keep them under review. The scheme to which the hon. Gentleman referred is interesting and imaginative.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: On the question of the agricultural environment, the Minister keeps saying that support for agriculture needs to move away from production to environmental and rural considerations. Why is his Department's budget for the agri-environment just £21 million this financial year, when support for the common agricultural policy is £2,800 million? Less than 1 per cent. of the Department's budget is allocated to the environment. Is that not a rather feeble commitment to the environment?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman should recall that we are also financing schemes within the European Community part of our budget which go to the environment. I am sure that the House is well aware of our dilemma. As net contributors, it is very difficult for us to argue for a domestic increase in a budget when we are spending so much through the CAP as well. There must be some constraints on spending. If we were able to reduce our contribution to the European Community—which I think we will achieve over time—there would be more room for funding localised schemes.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the people of Scotland are astonished that land has been set aside when it should be used to grow desperately needed malt and barley for the whisky industry? It is difficult to explain that to people, but it would be easier to explain if we were able to grow woodland on that land.

Mr. Waldegrave: If the land is suitable and is eligible for the farm woodland grant scheme I hope that they will be able to do exactly that. I remind my hon. Friend—I am sure that the House is aware of it—that set-aside is not compulsory. Farmers in different parts of the country have chosen not to fill in their integrated administration and control systems forms, take the subsidy or set aside. One obviously must have good land if one is to do that. Set-aside land is an exchange for the subsidies that are offered.

Fish Stocks

Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the current health of the United Kingdom's fish stocks. [13878]

Mr. Jack: The state of the fish stocks around the United Kingdom is monitored continually by fisheries scientists, whose advice underpins the annual European Union decision on what can be safely fished. The state of many stocks continues to give cause for concern.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the common fisheries policy is universally loathed in the industry? Is it not about time that the Government stood up for a change in that policy which would allow all member states to control unilaterally a rigorous conservation policy? Should he not do something about that in Brussels before there are no fish and no industry left?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should look to his own Front Bench who, as far as I am aware, are still on side as far as the common fisheries policy is concerned. At least on this side of the House we have had the courage to face the issues. At my right hon. Friend's insistence, a small group has been formed of experts from the industry who will examine ways of reforming the common fisheries policy and addressing some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. In advocating a world without the common fisheries policy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman dreams of returning to the halcyon days of the three-mile limit when fishermen could do whatever they wanted and there was no defence for our fishermen.

Mr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend appreciate the anger of fishermen—particularly following the unfortunate incident in Plymouth on Saturday when I think that he behaved very well indeed? What will Her Majesty's Government do to ensure that the Spanish begin at least to try to abide by the laws which are designed to protect fish stocks, because at the moment they are flouting them completely?

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of sympathy. I am still dusting the flour off my shoulders after last week. Following my first encounter with certain fishermen in Plymouth, I had a very sensible and constructive meeting with representatives from the west country industry—some of whom came from my hon. Friend's part of the world. We discussed the central issue of enforcement.
I have made it absolutely clear to the new Fisheries Commissioner, Mrs. Bonino, that if we do not have proper enforcement and policing measures within the common fisheries policy I will understand why our fishermen have no confidence in it. In the context of the disagreements between Canada and Spain, I have taken the opportunity to reiterate at the highest level in the Commission the need for proper attention to be paid to that matter.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Given that fish stocks are under pressure and that there are likely to be fewer employment opportunities in the industry, will the Minister give his full support to the early retirement scheme for fishermen at the Fisheries Council meeting on 5 April? Does he agree that, if the scheme is to work properly, it must be mandatory throughout the European Union, it must be applied uniformly and more cash must be put on the table? It is a worthwhile start. Will the Minister come off the fence and give the scheme his absolute support now?

Mr. Jack: We shall have to wait and see the proposals when they are tabled at the Fisheries Council. We have, however, increased our resources to the fishing industry to enable it to restructure by having a budget of some

£53 million for the decommissioning scheme. As for other matters, we are presently advancing the PESCA scheme which aids those parts of the fishing community affected by the decline of work at sea. We are spending additional sums of money on enforcement and research and development. There are, ultimately, limits on what we can spend on an industry that is valued at £500 million.

Framework Programme (Research)

Mr. Lester: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what opportunities the new FP IV European research programme for the agriculture, fisheries and food sectors will provide for United Kingdom researchers. [13880]

Mr. Waldegrave: The new agriculture and fisheries programme, part of the fourth framework programme is well directed to United Kingdom priorities, including animal health and welfare, non-food agriculture, fish stock management and aquaculture and food technology and nutrition. Some 660 million ecu, or just over £500 million are available for the programme. There are wide opportunities for United Kingdom researchers to participate.

Mr. Lester: Does my right hon. Friend agree that research and development is vital to the future of British agriculture? Is not it a good thing that, despite contributing 15 per cent. to the European programme, we won back 18 per cent. from the last programme?

Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In last year's expenditure round, I protected the domestic research and development budget of my Department for that reason. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the European Community's research and development programme. Various things have to be done on European scale if we are to compete with the Americans and the far east. It is encouraging that British scientists are the preferred partners of those in France and Germany, which is why we get back more than we put in.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Can my right hon. Friend advise me if a research grant would be available to Northern Foods, which today announced substantial staff reductions, not only in its milk sector, but in its meat and groceries division?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have no doubt that the company might be able to form a joint venture and make an application for research funds. I very much hope that that would enable it to confirm that a large part of the redundancies it has sadly had to announce have nothing whatsoever to do with its milk business.

Gooseberry Industry

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to encourage the development of the British gooseberry industry. [13881]

Mr. Jack: We encourage the development of all horticultural produce in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the gooseberry is a grossly underrated fruit and that gooseberry crumble and gooseberry fool make excellent


puddings? What is he doing to promote the gooseberry, particularly the giant gooseberry and the desert gooseberry?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend's giant question deserves a giant answer. He may be interested to know that at one time the big gooseberry season was put to the time of year that Members of Parliament thought was a dull time for journalists. On a serious note, I can tell him that with help from the Ministry, the East Malling research station has developed a new large red desert gooseberry which my hon. Friend will find to his taste with when it comes on to the market later this year.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would not this be a safer place in which to work if hon. Members spent more time eating gooseberries rather than goosing.

Mr. Jack: There is a growing demand—[Interruption.] I was almost tempted to say that perhaps that question came from a gooseberry fool, but I shall return to the thrust of my argument. The supermarkets have shown great interest in having more supplies of gooseberries. Once that is achieved, all will benefit from it.

Trade Deficiency

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the trade deficiency in agricultural produce. [13885]

Mr. Waldegrave: My Department has a wide range of initiatives specifically designed to tackle the trade gap.

Mr. Griffiths: Can the Minister tell us, then, why we continue to have a huge trade deficit in food and why in France 90 per cent. of desert apples are home grown, while in Britain the figure is only 25 per cent? Should we blame our consumers or our farmers, or is it down to lack of support from the Government?

Mr. Waldegrave: The obvious reason why we have a large deficit is that we can grow only temporary foodstuffs. Even in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, banana production would not do very well. However, many imports could and should be produced here. My Department, through Food From Britain, a range of marketing grants and, above all, the huge support structure for British agriculture, is doing a great deal to grow more in Britain. In the past few years, the history of apple production—the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister of State have led in this—has been encouraging.

Mr. Lord: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pig farmers in Suffolk are extremely afraid of unfair competition from Europe as they phase out their sow stalls and tethers while others may not? It would be quite a contribution to the trade balance if more of our own pigmeat could be consumed in Britain. Supermarkets are showing increasing interest in our home grown, extensively produced pigmeat and I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he possibly can to encourage that trend.

Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly can and will; the Meat and Livestock Commission is doing that. Both sides of the House will want to join my hon. Friend in saying that it would be perfectly legitimate to have a campaign for high welfare pigmeat. British pigmeat is reared in humane conditions, which is not necessarily true of imported pig products.

Dr. Strang: Is not it clear that in the dairy sector Government deregulation has forced up prices for consumers and destroyed jobs? Does the Minister agree with the management of Northern Foods plc that deregulation is one of the reasons for the devastating job losses that have been announced today? Will the Minister admit that as long as we have EU milk quotas we cannot have a proper free market in the milk sector and that deregulation gives us the worst of all worlds, as the Labour party and others warned at the time?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have very great sympathy with those people in Northern Foods who have lost their jobs. I have rather limited sympathy for the management, because I happen to know, as many farmers will confirm, that Northern Foods was going round the farms up and down the country saying that whatever anybody else would pay for milk it would pay 1½p more. If that was not bidding up the market, I do not know what was. If Northern Foods then found that, having bought the market share, it could not afford it, that is bad management. The overall situation in that market has been one historically where we have imported high value added products and exported low value added products. That is crazy. It is now changing, but in the long term we will have a much stronger and more secure market.

Milk (Dioxins)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent tests have been taken in the Bolsover area regarding levels of dioxins in milk; and if he will make a statement. [13887]

Mrs. Browning: The Ministry sampled milk from the Bolsover area in July 1994 and I announced the results of dioxins testing on 20 October 1994. We will take further samples this year.

Mr. Skinner: Will the new team of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food take a fresh look at the matter? In the past several years, high levels of dioxins have occurred not only in milk but in the River Doe Lea—about 1,000 times above the safety level—and in the atmosphere, and we now have the alarming news that dioxin has been found in the blood of some workers at Coalite. In view of those facts, will the Ministry now hold the public inquiry that was refused years ago? I am sure that if such conditions applied anywhere near Buckingham palace there would have been a public inquiry years ago.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has rightly brought the matter to the attention of the House on many occasions. I cannot this afternoon give him an assurance of a public inquiry. The health of the workers at Coalite is subject to an independent Government committee on toxicity and its findings will be passed to the Health and Safety Executive, which will then consider whether further action is needed. I am keen to hear the hon. Gentleman's further views on the matter and, if he would find it helpful, I would be pleased to see him at the Ministry to discuss it in more detail.

Fisheries Policy

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the fishing industry to discuss fisheries policy. [13888]

Mr. Jack: I last encountered representatives of the fishing industry on 17 March in Plymouth, principally to discuss the implementation of the future arrangements to apply in western waters from 1 January, but also to boost the sales of British flour.

Mr. McAvoy: I am sure that the Minister enjoyed his encounter at Plymouth, but I assure him that if he ever meets fishermen from Scotland and Northern Ireland it will be an even more robust encounter. Did fishermen in Plymouth take the opportunity to tell the Minister that they just do not believe that he and his Government fully represent their interests in the European Union? In that context, will the Minister consider contacting the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans to borrow some backbone?

Mr. Jack: I had a useful discussion with members of the industry. Although we may not have agreed on everything, it is fair to say, as some of the comments of the industry's representatives on the treatment that I received at Plymouth showed, that they understood that they had been listened to and that their views would be represented fully in Brussels.
The Canadian Prime Minister said in Parliament in Ottawa yesterday that he hoped that the discussions would be helpful. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, behind the scenes, we have been doing a great deal of work with the help of Sir Leon Brittan and Sir John Kerr to ensure that the negotiations are kept on track. Ultimately, they will come to a successful conclusion.

Mr. David Porter: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of the fishing industry, he surely cannot find many who are any longer in favour of our membership of the common fisheries policy. Does he accept that it is the policy itself that is destroying fish stocks, and that instead of tinkering with it he should agree to come out of it and start afresh?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend knows that I shall soon have meetings with representatives of the industry in Lowestoft, and I shall certainly listen carefully to their comments on the common fisheries policy. To say simply that all problems will be solved by coming out is to offer too simplistic a solution. Without a common policy, we would have to invent some system of common management for fish stocks to the benefit of all fishermen concerned. I would certainly welcome constructive comment from my hon. Friend on the way forward in reforming the common policy.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Why does the Minister not accept that he cannot have it both ways? He cannot spend his time in this country defending a common fisheries policy that the industry wants to get rid of, and his time in Europe failing to get the British industry a better deal under that common fisheries policy. He has to do one thing or the other—either pull us out or get a better deal for the nation, which contributes 75 per cent. of the fish.

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman does not speak for the entire United Kingdom fishing industry. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations has taken a view on Britain's fish, but he will know that its view is not supported by fishermen in Northern Ireland or in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asks for a better deal. Under their terms of accession to the Community, Spain and Portugal could have expected a free-for-all in western waters, but we kept them out of the Irish sea and out of the Bristol channel. Instead of having 220 Spanish fishing boats in the remainder of the Irish box, we restricted the number to 40. That is not a bad deal by any standards.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister will shortly visit the three fishing ports in Northern Ireland. I very much regret that I shall not be there personally to meet him, but I can assure him that he will be received with the respect that he deserves by fishermen in Northern Ireland. One of the main issues that they will raise with him is the unfairness of the operation of the Hague preference for the Northern Ireland fishing fleet. I ask him this now, as a matter of urgency: a rumour and concern exists in Portavogie that, in the next decommissioning scheme, boats fishing for nephrops will be excluded from the advantages of that scheme. Can he give an answer to that today?

Mr. Jack: On the Hague preference, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a complex and difficult issue. In recent times, the United Kingdom has gained overall as a result of the operation of the Hague preference, but because of the increase in the haddock stock in the past quota round we have a net deficit. I am looking carefully at the implications of that and will welcome contributions to that discussion from the Northern Ireland fishing industry. I have also heard the same rumour about nephrops and decommissioning. I will certainly examine the matter most carefully and will have an answer for Northern Ireland's fishermen when I visit.

Mr. Ian Bruce: May I welcome my hon. Friend back from what appeared to be a Head and Shoulders shampoo advertisement? My fishermen think that he is head and shoulders above other agriculture and fisheries Ministers when he goes to the European Commission.
Are we reducing the amount of fish that we are landing, or is the amount increasing? Is the value down or up? What would happen if we had no European common fisheries policy to police the illegal activities of the Spanish?

Mr. Jack: If my hon. Friend examines the latest fisheries statistics, he will find that the value of landings has increased.
My hon. Friend made a pertinent point about the common fisheries policy. If we returned to the days when there was no such policy, we should have only a three-mile limit, and anyone would be able to establish their own free-for-all. If we pulled out of the policy unilaterally, as some have suggested, the other countries remaining in it would say, "We will play by our rules"—which would be to the detriment of our fishermen.

Meat Exports

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to encourage on-the-hook meat exports. [13890]

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall address a Meat and Livestock Commission conference on 3 April on developing outlets


for dairy breed beef, including exports. I shall encourage good applications for meat export initiatives to come forward under MAFF's marketing schemes.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answer. Can he confirm that United Kingdom meat exports have nearly doubled since 1991? Does that not underline the expertise and export success of British companies such as Anglo Dutch Meats in my constituency?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can more than confirm what my hon. Friend asks. In 1994 United Kingdom meat exports were worth £950 million; in 1984 they were worth £400 million. There has been a huge expansion in exports, which is a tribute to businesses such as those to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Will not the establishment of a meat hygiene agency, as proposed by the Government, double abattoir inspection charges, and will that not further discourage on-the-hook exports?

Mr. Waldegrave: No. There has already been an increase as a result of the European Community directive that applies to veterinary inspection of abattoirs, but that is separate from the activities of the meat hygiene service. The service has assured me that it will cut the overall cost: the amount of resources going into inspection will be smaller than it was under the local authority regime.

Sugar Regime

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to defend British interests in the forthcoming discussions on the reform of the EU sugar regime. [13891]

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend is pressing strongly for a conclusion that meets the interests of consumers and the United Kingdom sugar beet and cane sectors.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look to world market prices to balance supply and demand for sugar, rather than to artificial quotas and price rises that threaten British jobs in my constituency and elsewhere?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend does the House a singular service in drawing our attention to the need for deep price cuts as the best way of solving Europe's over-supply problem, certainly in relation to beet sugar. We are pressing for a price reduction of some 12 per cent. in the negotiations. We do not believe that our sugar beet quota should be reduced, as our production is not contributing to the surplus.

Mr. Stevenson: If that is so, would the Minister care to explain why the British Government have just agreed to European Commission proposals on the sugar regime that effectively mean no change whatever in the next five years? How does he square that with his apparent enthusiasm for change in the sugar quota regime?

Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman—who, I know, follows these matters reasonably closely—is somewhat ill informed. No agreement has been reached on the future of the sugar regime. My right hon. Friend will examine the matter when he goes to the Agriculture Council next week.

Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Timms: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the priorities for the Government in relation to agriculture at the intergovernmental conference in 1996. [13893]

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government are currently considering their priorities for the inter-governmental conference. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman heard the Minister's response.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government are currently considering their priorities for the inter-governmental conference.

Mr. Timms: What further consideration has the right hon. Gentleman given to the sugar regime, given the impact on jobs at Tate and Lyle in east London?

Mr. Waldegrave: That was a good, off-the-cuff question from the hon. Gentleman, who obviously thought that he had been called to speak on the last question. The sugar regime is unlikely to be a matter of treaty amendment at the IGC.

Veal Market

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote the British rose veal market. [13895]

Mrs. Browning: I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the initiatives we are taking to promote British rose veal. We had a successful veal seminar at the Department and we are setting up a demonstration unit to encourage United Kingdom producers to raise welfare-friendly veal.

Lady Olga Maitland: To ease the problems of the veal trade, should not we encourage every family in Britain to serve roast veal to their families this Sunday? Will my hon. Friend encourage supermarket initiatives to promote high-welfare veal so that we can achieve the widest distribution possible?

Mrs. Browning: I am very happy to encourage welfare-friendly veal to be served for Sunday lunch, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I think that the answer is in the sauce. There will be much opportunity not just for roast veal, but for many other delicious recipes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Border Controls

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the issue of the declaration attached to the Single Act on border controls. [139904]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): I see no need to do so. I do not regard our frontier controls as something to bargain over. I will continue to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain them. I will, of course, look at what needs to be done if the circumstances make it necessary or desirable.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his recent statement that he will take whatever steps


are necessary to retain our border controls, in the face of what appears to me to be an obsession in Europe with getting rid of them. Will he consider the possibility of, at the 1996 IGC, seeking to resolve a legislative inadequacy created by a previous Administration by having the declaration changed into a treaty clause, which would stand firm in our courts and in the European Court?

The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend and I agree that any change to our frontier controls is unacceptable. Our European partners know that that is the position. If, at some stage, they were to come under risk, and if it became necessary to seek a treaty amendment, of course I would do so.

Engagements

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13905]

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Mitchell: In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's day, will he take time to consider whether the economic recovery that Mr. George Soros and others forced on him is still proceeding to his satisfaction, or has it been so badly clobbered by unnecessary interest rate and tax increases that the best is already over?

The Prime Minister: No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the economic recovery, which is proceeding more effectively in this country than in any other European nation. He will rejoice with me at the 4 per cent. growth last year; the anticipated growth of more than 3 per cent. for this year and for next year; the fact that exports are running at record levels; the fact that employment is rising and unemployment is falling; and, above all, that we have now become one of the most competitive nations in industrial matters in the world.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome all that and I am grateful to him for letting me draw attention to it.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the massive support in the United Kingdom for the reintroduction of corporal punishment for mindless violence—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This House must come to order right away.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend encourage our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to look very carefully at what people in the United Kingdom are now demanding as punishment?

The Prime Minister: I think that many measures could be taken to deal with crime, especially juvenile crime. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend has said, and that my hon. Friend will give strong support to his measures.

Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, according to the Government's own parliamentary answers, the costs of rail privatisation just for British Rail,

the Department of Transport and the new regulatory bodies, leaving aside all the other costs, are estimated at more than £300 million?

The Prime Minister: I saw the right hon. Gentleman this morning and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) publishing their report on rail privatisation.

Mr. Donohoe: It is excellent.

The Prime Minister: That is not quite how I would have described it. As the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) inquires, I would have described it as one of the shoddiest pieces of work that I have seen for a long time. The figures that are shown in that report are pure fantasy. They include a whole range of operational costs for the railways, not in preparation for privatisation but to provide a modern railway service across this country, which is what we seek to do.

Mr. Blair: I asked the Prime Minister a specific factual question. Is it true—[Interruption.] Let us just get the facts. Is it true, according to the parliamentary answers that have been given, that the costs just for those bodies, leaving aside other matters, is more than £300 million? Will he confirm that British Rail has estimated that it will spend an extra £100 million in the next two years directly as a result of privatisation—yes or no?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that, or with dealing with one aspect of privatisation. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Hon. Members: Who was it?

Madam Speaker: George Foulkes. This is such a waste of time during 15 precious minutes.

The Prime Minister: The reality is that the true costs of privatisation are but one fraction of those claimed by the Labour party. They are a fraction of the costs of the industry, and a very small price to pay for a modern railway serving the nation in the way we wish to see it served.

Mr. Blair: People will notice that the Prime Minister has not disputed the figures that have been put. Will he confirm that when we add to those figures the metropolitan railway grant, recognised by the Department of Transport as costing £200 million this year and £200 million next year, and when we take even a fraction of the redundancy cost, the cost is more than £1 billion? Let us have a detailed refutation. Would not it be better if that £1,000 million were spent not on a privatisation that nobody wants but on delivering the modern railway network that the nation needs?

The Prime Minister: No, I have to repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that the figures that he quotes, which were used earlier this morning by his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, are fantasy figures—they are not real figures. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman some real figures. Investment will be sustained at around £1 billion, of which £250 million will come from the private sector. He cannot lecture us about private railways. He cannot begin to tell us what his own policy is or whether he would renationalise or not: he can tell us now if he wishes. The Labour party is more interested in appeasing


the rail unions than in building for the 20th century an efficient railway that serves the needs of passengers and that does not serve the needs of Labour's friends in the rail unions.

Mr. Jessel: In view of the tremendous success of the Queen's visit to South Africa and of her impressive arrival in HMS Britannia, does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain should continue to have a royal yacht?

The Prime Minister: It certainly has been a remarkably successful visit thus far to South Africa and I have every expectation that it will continue to be a successful visit. The question of the royal yacht is under consideration.

Mr. Ashdown: In the context of European immigration, will the Prime Minister confirm that he is aware of the seriousness of the deteriorating situation in Algeria and the implications that it has for Europe as a whole? Given Britain's residual interests in Algeria and Europe's failures in Bosnia, is not it an issue that should be tackled on the basis of the closest co-ordination among the European countries in which Britain plays a full and constructive role?

The Prime Minister: I agree that this is an important matter. I think that it illustrates the kind of areas where the common foreign and security policy can exercise more influence than any country individually.

Mr. Molyneaux: As loyalist paramilitary bodies only yesterday undertook to dismantle their terrorist apparatus, is it still the Government's policy that the same must apply to the IRA before it can be admitted to any further talks or discussions on any other issues?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the same conditions apply to Sinn Fein in terms of exploratory talks with a Minister, which is the matter under consideration at the present time. It will need to make the same commitments before entering into exploratory talks with my hon. Friend the Minister of State as were made by the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party. That is the case.
On the secondary matter of entering the political talks, which is often confused—but not, I know, by the right hon. Gentleman—that is some way down the road after the discussions on modalities have been agreed and after there has been substantial progress on decommissioning itself. That is some way away.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13906]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Prime Minister will know that the rules of the House prevent me from raising aspects of the trading activities of Lord Archer, his friend, and I do not intend to do so. However, in the light of the fact that the prosecuting authorities have repeatedly failed successfully to prosecute people who have committed the offence of insider dealing—we know who we are talking about—is not it time that there was a full review of the law? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to the country that that review will be undertaken?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm that Lord Archer is my friend, has been my friend and will remain my friend in the future.
On the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, the questions of prosecution are for the prosecuting authorities. If my right hon. Friends the Law Officers feel that something is going amiss, they will approach me and the necessary action will be taken.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13907]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wholly wrong for Labour councils such as mine in Merton to use council writing paper to write to Labour governors urging them to carry out a misconceived and misleading campaign against education budgets? Is not it about time that education authorities stopped alarming parents with political propaganda and got on with the job of providing the best possible education for our children?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, and neither is this an isolated incident in Merton.
On the substantive question of education funding, I see no reason why every council should not be able, with good maintenance and good management, to look after the standards of the education service within the funds available. Before people accept many of the claims being made by the education authorities, I hope that they will look to see whether those education authorities have sought to make savings elsewhere before directing savings to teachers in the classroom.

Mr. Clapham: Is the Prime Minister aware that some observers of the sale of British Coal's non-operational property estimate that it will raise more than £100 million? Will he assure the House that that money will be used for two major purposes: first to help to clean up residual pollution in mining communities, such as mine water pollution, and, secondly, to widen the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme, which the Government introduced in 1974 to make available payments for men awarded disabled assessments for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, thereby ending the illogical discrimination between sufferers of two diseases which are caused by the same dust?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman raises two important points that are worthy of consideration. I do not agree with him that the proceeds of that sale should be necessarily allocated specifically to those purposes, but the two purposes to which he refers are well worth examining.

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 March. [13908]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which was widely welcomed by the police and which deals with joyriders, tearaways and bail bandits, was fought tooth and nail by the Opposition and the then


shadow Home Secretary, who is now the Leader of the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is by their deeds, not their words, that we shall judge them?

The Prime Minister: I share the view that we should judge right hon. and hon. Opposition Members by the way in which they vote and act, rather than by what they say. I share with them the wish to prevent more crime, yet

they opposed all our changes on bail. They say that they want to ensure that the guilty are convicted, yet they opposed our changes to the right of silence. There are a range of areas where they have talked tough on crime, but when it has come to being in this House and being in the right Lobby to provide the right laws to bat against crime, we have found them in the wrong Lobby and not the right one.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
TUESDAY 28 MARCH—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Disability Discrimination Bill.
WEDNESDAY 29 MARCH—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day (10th allotted day)
There will be debate entitled "The Impact of Education Cuts on Standards and Opportunity" on an Opposition Motion.
Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill.
Motion relating to the National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 30 MARCH—Motion on the Contracting (Functions in Relation to the Registration of Companies) Order.
Motion on the local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 13).
Debate on tourism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 31 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The House may also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 29 March as follows: European Standing Committee A, European Community Document 6495/94, relating to Interoperability of High Speed Trains; European Standing Committee B, European Community Document 8076/94 relating to Protection of the Community's Financial Interests.
In the following week, on Monday 3 April and Tuesday 4 April, I anticipate progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill, bringing those to a conclusion on Tuesday 4 April. I cannot yet give details beyond that, but I harbour hopes of organising business in a way which would enable the House to rise for the recess at the close of business on Wednesday 5 April.

[Wednesday 29 March:

European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community documents: 6495/94, relating to Interoperability of High Speed Trains. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 48-xxviii (1993–94) and HC 70-xi ( 1994–95).

European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: 8076/94, relating to Protection of the Community's Financial Interests. Relevant European Legislation Committee reports: HC 48-xxviii (1993–94)]

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Will he confirm that the morning sitting on Wednesday 5 April will take the format of the traditional motion for the spring Adjournment, so that hon. Members may raise any appropriate issue without giving notice to

the Speaker, and that it will be followed by three half-hour Adjournment debates, for which hon. Members must apply in the usual way?
Can the Leader of the House tell us yet what he intends to do about the recommendations of the first special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was first published on 7 March?
In view of the decisions taken today by the magistrates court in Croydon, and of what happened to Mr. Cantona this morning, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we may be able to have a debate in the near future on consistency in sentencing in magistrates courts? It would not involve matters that are sub judice if we discussed consistency.
Can the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect a debate in Government time on the national health service? If we cannot have an immediate debate, will he guarantee that there will be a debate in advance of any further moves to allow certain private companies, some of which contribute to the Conservative party, to take over the running of NHS hospitals?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a debate and for answers from Ministers on what they intend to do about the electricity industry, and especially about the regulator's ability to protect the interests of consumers? That is necessary not least because of the regulator's proposal, following the windfall profits being made by the regional electricity companies, that consumers should receive some benefit from those profits—a suggestion that has been blocked by some of the fat cats in those companies.
Surely the Government have some responsibility in the matter, because they framed the legislation and they rigged the sale to ensure substantial profits. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that Parliament has the chance to be the voice of the consumer?

Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in reverse order. On the electricity issue, I simply say that there is no doubt that consumers have benefited from the downward pressure on prices already created by privatisation, in that industry and in several others.
Of course I take note of the hon. Lady's request concerning the NHS, but I wish that she had acknowledged that the private finance initiative in the NHS and in other spheres was essentially designed to bring additional resources somewhere where we all want to see them generated, whenever and however that can be done.
As for the sentence on Mr. Cantona in Croydon, the hon. Lady will understand that I would not think it appropriate to comment on such a matter from the Dispatch Box, but I shall certainly bring her comments to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
I am still considering how best to proceed on Members' interests, and I hope to have further discussions through the usual channels. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the issue, if not before the Easter recess—I still would not entirely rule out that possibility—immediately afterwards.
The answer to the hon. Lady's question about the Wednesday morning debates on 5 April is strictly a matter for you, Madam Speaker, but I think that I probably have your tacit authorisation to say that what the hon. Lady


said was right. For the first three hours, the format will be essentially the same as for the traditional recess motion, and people can raise what they like without my having to try to answer it all at the end. That will be followed by three half-hour Adjournment debates under the normal ballot arrangements.

Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend will have heard the very reassuring remarks by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with regard to our border controls. Was my right hon. Friend in effect saying that he would guarantee that the United Kingdom would retain its border controls? If not, could we clarify the issue by having a debate next week?

Mr. Newton: I thought that I sensed, as my hon. Friend did, that the Prime Minister's remarks were extremely clear. Certainly I do not think that I need to, or can, add to them.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in many parts of the House, there is growing concern about the method and timing of the way in which the House considers controversial regulations? I draw his attention in particular to the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, which are due to come into force in a few days' time.
Those regulations will introduce the Meat Hygiene Service, which represents an extremely controversial change from the present arrangements and is causing great concern throughout the country, to the agricultural industry, to the abattoirs themselves and, most noticeably, to those who think that the removal from local democratic control will produce a new and powerful quango.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 845, and the amendment thereto, which refers to a controversial appointment to the new service?

[That this House believes that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, at present laid before the House, are primarily intended to empower the Meat Hygiene Service to take over from local authorities the responsibility for meat inspection and the supervision of hygiene in slaughterhouses; takes note that through the ability of the Meat Hygiene Service to set the level of fees, a risk free business is proposed to be established with a turnover of £40 million extracted from the meat industry and wonders about the interests involved; questions also whether the regulations are seen as a convenient device for enforcing rationalisation in the industry which would not be to the long term benefit either of the consumer or of standards of hygiene in the industry; strongly objects to their being laid before the House, despite a lengthy period of gestation, with such short notice before the intended start of operations by the Meat Hygiene Service, which it regards as a contempt of the House; can see no service advantage in the proposed system over the service currently provided by the local authorities; and therefore demands that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, be not enacted but that local authorities should retain their powers and responsibilities through the application of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.]

Mr. Newton: I shall leave aside the question of the appointment for the moment. On the wider issues which

the hon. Gentleman raised, there is, of course, a prayer down on this matter that will be given consideration through the usual channels.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is there any possibility in the near future of having a full-scale debate on the rights—and, even more importantly, the duties—of the citizen? Some of us are perplexed about the policies being advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, as the poor fellow can only utter sound bites in the newspapers.

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether "puzzled" is the right word, but I am increasingly struck by the fact that the rather windy words which have been used appear to be nothing more than a cloak for an old-fashioned increase in state intervention into everybody's lives, and that is what people do not want.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the sneaky and underhand way in which the Ministry of Defence has announced the closure of RAF Finningley? Will he arrange as a matter of urgency for a debate to be held before the Easter recess on the RAF and the implications of that decision?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot promise such a debate before the Easter recess, but at some stage we will have the annual debate on the RAF, which is one of the service days that has not yet taken place. As to the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I would not for a moment accept his description of any action of any of my right hon. Friends, but nevertheless I shall draw his feelings to their attention.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we have a debate next week on truancy from schools? This morning, the Leader of the Opposition told the public that there were Conservative laws for dealing with truancy, but he did not tell the public why Labour councils have not used them effectively.

Mr. Newton: That was a good question, but it was not one for me.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a story by Anthony Bevins which appeared in last Sunday's The Observer and which was headlined "Three-day week for idle MPs"? I for one deeply resent that sort of comment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Could we have a debate on the work load of Members of Parliament, particularly in light of boundary changes which are adding about 30 per cent. to my work load, with no discussion about whether additional resources will be made available to Members to deal with the changes? We do not need lectures from journalists—we need to tell the truth in the House.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have gathered that, unlike some of the questions which he has asked, that one elicited a good deal of sympathy from Members in all parts of the House. It should be underlined that Members of Parliament are now able to give more time to their duties in many other ways, including those duties in their constituencies to which both they and their constituents attach importance.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: In his response to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor),


my right hon. Friend referred to the special report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. He stated, as he did last week, that the matter should be dealt with by the usual channels, which seem to be extremely slow. Can he assure us that the matter will be brought before the House on a firm resolution which will lead to a solution, and which will allow a Select Committee of the House to continue its work, even after a delay of two months?

Mr. Newton: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. One of the things that we are concerned about is that we should, if possible, deal with the matters not simply on an ad hoc basis, but on a basis that gives a secure foundation for the future work of any Select Committee.

Ms Ann Coffey: Is the Leader of the House aware of proposals to change the fostering regulations, which are currently being discussed in the Department of Health and will have serious consequences for local authorities and foster parents? Will he assure me that time will be made available for a debate on those changes, and that they will not go through without a debate?

Mr. Newton: I cannot give an assurance off the cuff, not least because, in a former ministerial incarnation, I was probably responsible for earlier arrangements on that matter. It is a subject in which I am personally interested, and I shall look carefully at the point that the hon. Lady raised.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the conference on the nuclear proliferation treaty will begin on 17 April. If we cannot have a debate on nuclear issues before the Easter recess, may we have one as soon as possible after the recess?

Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance, but I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that I shall look at his request.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 757?
[That this House notes that the first international religious conference on the problem of pornography, Protecting our Children's Future, was held in Manila between 17th and 20th January; acknowledges the declaration drawn up by delegates; agrees that pornography has become a major economic force that requires international solutions; believes that the important values of free speech and increased international communication are not compromised by ensuring that children, women and men are protected from sexual exploitation; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring United Kingdom law into line with Sweden, Germany, France, Norway, Australia and the USA so that British citizens who commit child sex offences abroad can be prosecuted under British law and to initiate an international law enforcement initiative to combat the global trade in computer pornography via the Internet.]
Will the Leader of the House have a chat with the Home Secretary to see whether legislation can be introduced to protect young people abroad from marauders who go there from this country? If he cannot introduce legislation before Easter, may I press him to do so shortly after Easter to give hope to others?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter was recently raised in another place. He will

also be aware that we have recently taken action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to strengthen further our controls on pornography, but of course I shall draw his point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the main railway line which currently carries all channel tunnel expresses runs through my constituency? Does he therefore understand my constituents' concern about the noise and vibrations affecting them and their properties? Will he find an early opportunity for a debate on that subject, and on questions of compensation?

Mr. Newton: Once again, I am afraid that I cannot promise an early debate of precisely the kind that my hon. Friend seeks, but he will be aware that progress is being made in the Private Bill Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, which will in due course lead to discussion on the Floor of the House. Although perhaps not in the near term, at some stage that will provide a further opportunity to discuss those matters.

Ms Jean Corston: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on today's press reports that the Department of Social Security is to spend £200 million on a computerised identity database to be run by a private company and to include details of income and work history? That is despite a warning by the Data Protection Registrar last year that voluntary schemes could become compulsory by stealth. If the Home Secretary wants an identity card scheme, should he not come to the House to argue his case, rather than get the Department of Social Security to bring one in by the back door?

Mr. Newton: There are three points to make: first, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as is well known, will produce a Green Paper on those matters; secondly, any action by the DSS is certainly not directed to producing an identity card "by the back door"; thirdly, any action by the DSS is directed towards something which everyone in the House should support, which is the prevention of fraud.

Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have an urgent debate on the financial state of Lambeth council, given that it has domestic rates arrears of £13 million, community charge arrears of £85 million, and council tax arrears of £29 million? Would not such a debate enable the Opposition to apologise 'to the people of Lambeth for years of Labour misrule?

Mr. Newton: Yes, it would provide an opportunity for such an apology. I would therefore very much like to provide it, but am not sure that I can promise to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Leader of the House has already had about 10 requests for debates of some kind, most of which he has been unable to accept, yet a few moments ago he said that the House would rise a day early for the Easter holiday. Would it not make more sense to sit on that day, which should be used to discuss the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire,


North-East (Mr. Barnes), so that, instead of hon. Members going off on their holidays, we could help 6 million disabled people?

Mr. Newton: Whether or not the House sat on the Thursday, it would not be a private Members' day. I have said several times that I have no plans for changing the usual arrangements for dealing with private Members' Bills.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House be able to inform the House when the Environment Bill will come before it? Is he aware that many of us look forward to that Bill because of the way in which it affects national parks, and we seriously want that Bill to be enacted, so that there will also be more local representation on national parks?

Mr. Newton: First, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an excellent Bill. Secondly, in direct answer to his question, I would expect to take the Second Reading of the Bill shortly after the Easter recess.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Was not the law made an ass of yesterday in Newport, East, the neighbouring constituency to mine, when the remarkable decision was taken to halt a trial on the sole grounds that the jurors did not understand the details of that financial case? Is that not an open invitation to fraudsters to commit crimes, as long as they are sufficiently complicated not to be understood by the juries? Do we not need an urgent debate to institute courts that have specialist jurors who will understand financial complexities of that type?

Mr. Newton: Madam Speaker, unless you are going to seek to prevent me from answering, I shall say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has asked the Director of Public Prosecutions for a full and urgent report on what the hon. Gentleman describes. I might add, however, that, although the jury has been discharged and two defendants have been acquitted, proceedings in relation to five other defendants have not been concluded.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an early debate on child care, so that we can discover how the Opposition reconcile their proposition that child benefit should be taxed at 40 per cent. with the fact that they are simultaneously encouraging the belief that there will be tax relief for nannies?

Mr. Newton: I receive an amazing number of requests to try to explain the contortions, the convolutions and the inexplicable nature of some policy pronouncements by the Labour party. I am afraid that that task is beyond me, but I hope that my hon. Friend's question elicits an answer from those who repeatedly think up those policies.

Mr. Max Madden: May we have an early debate on immigration and asylum policy in a United Kingdom and European Union context, which would give Ministers an opportunity to explain why Mr. Zia Rahman Farouki, who preaches hatred of Shi'ite Muslims, has been allowed to visit this country, when constituents are denied visits by relatives and friends on frequent occasions? It would also provide an opportunity for the Home Secretary to confirm or deny that he plans

a new immigration Bill, which many of us fear will be used as a race card before the local elections and forthcoming general election.

Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to comment about the particular case that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. James Clappison: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate about facilities at the House at weekends? Is my right hon. Friend aware that last weekend, for example, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who speaks for the Labour party on energy, had to go to Twickenham to discuss energy policy with British Gas and that, of course, he therefore had to endure the sort of executive perks and privileges that Opposition Members have denounced, and that he also had to go as a guest of Mr. Cedric Brown, whom hon. Members have also denounced?
Will my right hon. Friend spare the hon. Member for Clackmannan and other Opposition Members similar ordeals in future, and make facilities available for them here?

Mr. Newton: I think that the appropriate answer in House of Commons terms is to say that I shall bring that request to the attention of the Administration Committee, or something of that type, but I strongly suspect that, however many facilities were available, the one most likely to use them would be the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who appears never to want to go anywhere else.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Last week, the Leader of the House said that he would reflect on issues arising out of my question to the Prime Minister in relation to Lockerbie. Before the recess, could there be any facility for the Crown Office, on which more and more responsibility is being placed by the Foreign Office and Downing street, at least to make some kind of a statement in a democratic forum?

Mr. Newton: I shall seek to come back to the hon. Gentleman about what I said last week, and I regret that I have not yet been able to do so. I certainly cannot give him the undertaking that he seeks now.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the relative powers and responsibilities of central and local government? Does he agree that such a debate would enable us to expose the simple truth that the Labour party's proposals for regional assemblies would rob local authorities of their power? Such a debate would also enable me to express the abhorrence of the people of Worcestershire of the prospect of being ruled by Birmingham.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend expresses, more eloquently than I did, a point that I made from the Dispatch Box last week. I agree with my hon. Friend's remarks, and should it be possible to provide time for such a debate, I shall be glad to do so.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to reports in today's newspapers that the Government are considering relaxing the rules on the number of roadside information signs, in view of the fears expressed by the Automobile


Association, environmental groups and others about the safety of drivers who are confused by the number of signs? Could he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House at an early date?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is due to be here to answer questions on one of the days embraced by the business statement—Monday 3 April. That may provide an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to give a statement. It should be said, in fairness, that motorists sometimes encounter difficulties because of the absence of signs to help them to get where they want to go.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on grant-maintained schools? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) yesterday addressed a conference of the grant-maintained heads of England and Wales, and threw them into total confusion? They have no idea what the Labour party stands for. More than that, he said that he would remove their independence, by using the expression "enhanced accountability." That can only mean a return to town hall tyranny and control.

Mr. Newton: I certainly have the clear impression that the hon. Member for Brightside further increased the number of bodies who are in a state of confusion about Labour party policy—that appears to include the Labour party itself.

Mr. Harry Barnes: As the Disability Discrimination Bill comes back before us next Monday and Tuesday, would the Leader of the House look at what is happening to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, a competing Bill which is being held up by a series of filibusters in Standing Committee C so that it cannot make progress? Hon. Members should have a chance to decide between the principles contained in the two Bills. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to ensure that that happens. Could the Bill be dealt with in a Committee of the whole House if room cannot be found for it in Standing Committee C?

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I have said on numerous occasions in the past few weeks about my plans for the handling of private Members' Bills. We should proceed normally. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of proceedings in the relevant Standing Committee, which is dealing with a number of other important private Members' Bills.

Mr. Christopher Gill: The Leader of the House will recall that two weeks ago I asked for an early debate on the Meat Hygiene Service, since when my right hon. Friend has acknowledged that the official Opposition have tabled a prayer against the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. My right hon. Friend has also acknowledged the existence of early-day motion 845, which has been signed by more than 50 hon. Members.
[That this House believes that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, at present laid before the House, are primarily intended to empower the Meat Hygiene Service to take over from local authorities the responsibility for meat inspection and the supervision of hygiene in slaughterhouses; takes note that through the ability of the Meat Hygiene Service to set the level of fees, a risk free business is proposed to be established with a

turnover of 140 million extracted from the meat industry and wonders about the interests involved; questions also whether the regulations are seen as a convenient device for enforcing rationalisation in the industry which would not be to the long term benefit either of the consumer or of standards of hygiene in the industry; strongly objects to their being laid before the House, despite a lengthy period of gestation, with such short notice before the intended start of operations by the Meat Hygiene Service, which it regards as a contempt of the House; can see no service advantage in the proposed system over the service currently provided by the local authorities; and therefore demands that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995, be not enacted but that local authorities should retain their powers and responsibilities through the application of the Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.]
Does not my right hon. Friend realise what serious problems are building up in the abattoir sector? Bishop's Castle abattoir in my constituency has been notified this week that the charge that it will have to pay for veterinary inspections is £60 per hour when most other abattoirs have been advised that their charge per hour will be £33.71. That is a serious problem, which the House should debate.
The Leader of the House is well aware of my view that the statutory instrument was brought to the House far too late—barely three weeks before coming into force—while the Government have, for three years, known what they want to do. That shows a contempt of the House, and it should be corrected at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Newton: I make two points. First, I cannot add to what I said earlier about the prayer that has been tabled concerning some of the regulations. Secondly, I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is looking very carefully at such representations as my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Mike Hall: Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a debate next week, or as soon as possible thereafter, to discuss the new Cabinet Committee which has been formed to co-ordinate and present Government policy? I believe that it is probably more to do with co-ordinating and presenting Tory party policy in order to improve its standing at the next election, and there may be a conflict of interest in respect of the civil servants who have been appointed to serve that Committee.
In order to ensure that the integrity of the civil service is not compromised and that taxpayers' money is not used for political purposes, will the Leader of the House arrange to have a debate on the subject as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Newton: I am not sure whether it constitutes an interest, but, as it has been stated publicly that I am a member of the Committee, I mention it again now.
I make two other points. First, such a committee would not have been established if the Cabinet Secretary had thought that it was outside the rules in any way. Secondly, as we have Cabinet Committees to examine Government policies in a variety of areas, it seems entirely reasonable to have a Cabinet Committee which is concerned with Government policy as a whole.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I ask my right hon. Friend to allow time for a debate next week on empty rhetoric, so that I may be able to put a comparison before


the House. The Labour-controlled Ealing borough council has failed to evict noisy neighbours, but the Leader of the Opposition suggested yesterday that the Labour party favours the eviction of noisy neighbours. Should not the attention of the House be drawn to the Labour party's failure to practise what it preaches?

Mr. Newton: I am rapidly running out of things to say in response to my hon. Friend's frequent references to Ealing borough council, whose iniquities are rehearsed weekly on the Floor of the House. The only thing that I would say to him is that a committee concerned with empty rhetoric is not one of which I would care to be a member.

Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate early next week on the question of bonuses to national health service managers and nurses' pay? Is he aware that figures released today by the Institute of Health Services Management show that bonuses of up to £10,500 have been paid to NHS managers? The bonuses have been described as "illogical", at a time when nurses' pay is under discussion and is being frozen by the Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that next week would present an ideal opportunity to debate both issues in the House?

Mr. Newton: In my usual reasonable way, I will certainly consider that request for a debate, provided that the debate also embraces the huge increase in the amount of treatment being provided through the NHS, and the efficiency with which resources are being used in patient care as a result of improvements in management.

Mr. John Whittingdale: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate a subject to which I know that he attaches great importance: the provision of school transport in Essex? Does he agree that the proposal by Liberal and Labour members of Essex county council to withdraw free school transport to grammar schools is mean-minded, petty and vindictive?

Mr. Newton: I am certainly well aware of the concern about that proposal, which, as my hon. Friend will understand, is shared by my constituents. Even so, I am not sure whether I can provide time for a debate on the issue. However, I hope that those in Essex will study my hon. Friend's words with care.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Can there be an early debate about banking, so that hon. Members have an opportunity to discuss the continued closure of small branches, such as Edwinstowe and Rainworth in Nottingham, while the National Westminster bank, for example, records profits of £1.4 billion?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the banks are private sector institutions which are responsible for decisions of that kind. I have no doubt that his remarks will be examined carefully by those concerned with the affairs of those institutions in his area.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House next week to make a statement about the Kingskerswell bypass? Is he aware that the future prosperity of my constituency depends on that work being undertaken at the earliest possible moment?
I have so far tabled no fewer than three parliamentary questions in an attempt to establish when work is due to commence, and I have been told for the past six months that work is imminent. However, no work has commenced, and the orders have not yet been made. Will my right hon. Friend request the Secretary of State to come to the House to explain when work can commence on the Kingskerswell bypass?

Mr. Newton: As it happens, I have already arranged for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to answer questions on Monday 3 April. I would judge from the question that he has just asked that my hon. Friend may seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Leader of the House give his attention to early-day motion 738, calling for the early ratification of the chemical weapons convention?
[That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the central part it played towards the negotiation of the Chemical Weapons Convention which bans the acquisition, development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, and which Her Majesty's Government signed in January 1993; fully supports the United Kingdom's commitment, first made at the G7 Summit in 1991, to become an original State Party to the Chemical Weapons Convention; notes that the Convention cannot enter into force until 180 days after 65 states have ratified and deposited their instruments of ratification with the Secretary-General of the UN; notes that as of the end of January 22 of the 159 signatory states had already deposited their instruments of ratification; views with concern that the United Kingdom has yet to ratify the Convention; notes further that Her Majesty's Government cannot ratify the Convention until enabling legislation has been brought forward by the Department of Trade and Industry and passed by Parliament; is concerned that the Department of Trade and Industry has no plans to do so in the current parliamentary session; understands that there is widespread support for the Convention amongst the main political parties at Westminster; welcomes the publication by the Department of Trade and Industry of a consultation document for the chemical industry regarding the implementation of the Convention in the United Kingdom; and urges the Department of Trade and Industry to bring forward the necessary legislation as a matter of urgency to demonstrate that chemical weapons arms control remains a high priority for the United Kingdom and to ensure that the United Kingdom does indeed become an original State Party to the Convention.]
Will he have a word with the President of the Board of Trade and insist that the Government bring forward that legislation in the near future, particularly in the light of the terrible events in Japan this week?

Mr. Newton: I am very conscious of the significance of the legislation, and it is something that I am certainly examining with care, wearing yet another of my hats as Chairman of the relevant Cabinet Committee on legislation.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend enable the Government to demonstrate their interest in the welfare of a premier British industry—civil air transport—by granting an early debate in Government time on the subject, in view of the European


Union's strong desire to arrogate to itself member nations' rights to negotiate civil air transport agreements and its failure to control subsidies to state carriers such as Iberia?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate on precisely those matters, but my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport attaches importance to all the points that he has raised, and I shall bring his further comments to his attention.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Minister will be aware of the decision by the Secretary of State for Transport to refer the case of the Derbyshire to Lord Donaldson for investigation. Despite the fact that I asked the Minister numerous questions, he failed to answer my last question and preferred to plant a question on the Conservative Benches so that he could reply to it. That did not really affect me, as I am concerned not simply about the Derbyshire, but about safety at sea.
The Derbyshire certainly demonstrates the need for the House to debate safety at sea. There is no doubt in my mind that the matter requires urgent debate, bearing in mind the tragedies that have occurred over the past decade. Will the Leader of the House impress on the Secretary of State for Transport that, in addition to what he has done—which is most welcome—he should prepare for a debate in the House on this important issue?

Mr. Newton: I shall certainly bring those remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, who will answer questions in about 10 days' time. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work in these matters. I expect that we all share his welcome for the inquiry, which is now established and for which he pressed for so long.

Mr. John Greenway: May I support the call from the shadow Leader of the House for a debate on the powers of sentencing given to magistrates? We could consider the Green Paper published last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and the powers which magistrates have, many of which were imposed by the Opposition in government; but, above all, we could consider sentences handed out by magistrates courts for acts of violence inside football grounds. Does he agree that the general public will applaud the decision in Croydon today?

Madam Speaker: Order. The matter is sub judice, and an appeal is pending, so perhaps the hon. Member will not persist in the line he is taking. Will the Leader of the House answer the first part of the question?

Mr. Newton: Only briefly, in the light of what you have said, Madam Speaker. The matter was raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and I cannot add to what I said to her.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: May I remind the Leader of the House that, at this time of year, funding, particularly in public sector budgets, is being squeezed? I have an internal memorandum from South Kent Hospitals NHS trust, which states:
Please note that the above practices"—

it refers to three GP fundholding practices—
do not wish patients to be given TCI"—

or "to come in"—
dates for their operations from Monday 13 March until 31 March. All urgent cases should still be admitted.

It continues:
As with many other practices, the above are attempting to curtail activities in order to remain within their financial limits. Please ensure that patients"—

Madam Speaker: Order. I really cannot allow Members to read out long extracts at business questions. Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Leader of the House what he is after, so that we might know whether we can have it next week?

Mr. Hughes: Clearly, those people are having their treatment delayed for purely financial reasons. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and justify having people's treatment delayed on financial grounds?

Mr. Newton: I can certainly arrange for the hon. Gentleman's remarks to be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Beyond that, if, as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman is quoting from what would conventionally be described as a leaked document, I shall certainly not comment on it off the cuff.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what happened yesterday in European Standing Committee B on immigration and border controls? Attendance at that Committee was so strong that many Conservative Members could not obtain seats? Will he think carefully about, and possibly consider having a debate on, whether more matters that go to European Standing Committee B could be brought back to the Floor of the House, so that hon. Members could have a greater chance to express their views on serious subjects that need to be discussed at great depth? I urge my right hon. Friend to have a debate on that at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of what happened yesterday in European Standing Committee B, but the European Standing Committees were set up in precisely the way that they have been, which is different from many others, in order to provide an opportunity for the Minister to be questioned as well as to have a debate, and for all Members who wish to attend to attend, even though only those who were appointed to the Committee can vote. Those arrangements seemed to work rather well yesterday.

Mr. Terry Lewis: As a diligent member of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, I reinforce the plea for an early debate on its first special report. In the meantime, I put it to the Lord President that many of us on that Committee are severely exasperated by the delay, but are even more exasperated by the leaks that seem to emanate from the Committee through the Tory Whips Office. May we have that debate as early as possible?

Mr. Newton: I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I certainly understand the desire to make progress on the matter, which has also been quite reasonably raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), and I have said that I shall be seeking to do that.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate as soon as possible, and preferably before Easter, on the standard of geriatric care in University hospital, Wales, where, a few days ago, a patient, a constituent of mine, Mr. George Ewart, was killed after receiving a massive overdose of morphine by an inexperienced nurse who was taking


instruction on the method of delivering the dose via a telephone call from an experienced nurse who was too busy to help? There has been a history of complaints about geriatric care at that hospital, and I would appreciate an early debate on the matter if the time could be found.

Mr. Newton: I am aware of that case, and I am sure that all of us would want to express our regret about it. It is, I understand, the subject of an internal investigation by South Glamorgan health authority, which is continuing, and it has also been reported to the coroner, who in turn has reported to the police. The Health and Safety Executive has also been informed. In the light of all that, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not think it appropriate to comment, and that at this moment it would not be appropriate to commit ourselves to a debate.

Mr. Alan Simpson: May we have an early debate on the privatisation by stealth of national health services? The article in The Independent today makes it clear that the Government's plans to extend the terms of the private finance initiative are not to bring in new finance but to compel NHS trusts to put health care services out to tender for strange combinations of builders and private health providers. Before the House is required to accept that the future of the NHS is to be put into the hands of the likes of McAlpine Health Care Ltd., should we not have the right to debate whether we wish to see an NHS in the future provided on the lump?

Mr. Newton: I understand that the report in The Independent is extremely selective in its quotations from the new guidance. It should be made clear that there is no requirement under the private finance initiative for any clinical services to be included in a facilities management package. Trusts should explore options of the private sector undertaking the design, building, finance and operation of the non-clinical services. In such schemes, the NHS would manage and provide all the health care services.

Mr. John Gunnell: Is the Leader of the House aware of the Home Secretary's plans to discuss with the House his proposals for the probation service? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware whether any debate has been arranged, or whether there is any

mechanism for us to give approval to the idea of drastically changing the training of probation officers, and perhaps replacing the present staff with recruits from the Army?

Mr. Newton: I have no plans at present for a debate, but that is not to rule it out, and, of course, I will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that some 13.5 million people live in the south-east of England, outside of Greater London, and that the House regularly has debates on Wales, Scotland and Greater London? Is there not a case for us to have an annual debate in which we can examine the stewardship of the interests of those 13.5 million people under the Conservative Government, in which I can criticise the Government on behalf of Labour voters, and the hon. Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) can try to defend the appalling state of the south-east of England under the Government, with all the unemployment, the negative equity and the high cost of travelling to work in London?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman shares with me the honour of representing some of the larger number to which he referred in our different parts of Essex. I do not recognise the description he gives, and in all honesty I do not think that I will undertake annual regional debates of the kind that he appears to be suggesting.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the Leader of the House do his best to ensure the publication of the Government report on the implications of the House of Lords ruling on the 1992 Pepper v. Hart case, in which, as he will no doubt recall, the Law Lords ruled that the courts could take into account ministerial statements when interpreting an Act of Parliament, rather than, as has always been the case in the past, just the words on the face of the Bill or the Act?
If the Government and their code of practice on open government are to be taken seriously, should not the working party report be open to all Members of the House to see? It is a change of enormous significance to the procedure of the House, our legislation and the way in which it is interpreted. It seems quite wrong that the Government should suppress a very important report and the debate that the House should have on it.

Mr. Newton: I am obviously aware of the Pepper v. Hart judgment, which was indeed, as the hon. Gentleman says, of some significance. The proper course is for me to undertake to reflect on the matter.

Point of Order

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I entirely fully understand why I came under your suspicion earlier, can I give you my absolute assurance that on this occasion I was not shouting in Prime Minister's Question Time, but I am grateful to you for drawing to the attention of the Observer that I was present for yet another Thursday?

Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I can distinguish a Welsh lilt from a Scottish accent. I think that both hon. Members might consider undertaking a vow of silence during Prime Minister's Question Time. I am always interested to hear their lovely accents, but not when another right hon. or hon. Member has the Floor of the House.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act 1995

South Africa Act 1995

Orders of the Day — Jobseekers Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New clause 6

REDUCED PAYMENTS

'.—(1) Regulations may provide for the amount of an income-based jobseeker's allowance payable to any young person to whom this section applies to be reduced—

(a) in such circumstances,
(b) by such a percentage, and
(c) for such a period,

as may be prescribed.
(2) This section applies to any young person in respect of whom—

(a) a direction is in force under section 13; and
(b) either of the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) is satisfied.

(3) The conditions are that—

(a) the young person was previously entitled to an income-based jobseeker' s allowance and that entitlement ceased by virtue of the revocation of a direction under section 13;
(b) he has failed to complete a course of training and no certificate has been issued to him under subsection (4) with respect to that failure.

(4) Where a young person who has failed to complete a course of training—

(a) claims that there was good cause for the failure, and
(b) applies to the Secretary of State for a certificate under this subsection,

the Secretary of State shall, if he is satisfied that there was good cause for the failure, issue a certificate to that effect and give a copy of it to the young person.
(5) In this section—

"training" has such meaning as may be prescribed; and
"young person" means a person who has reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18.'.—[Miss Widdecombe]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Government guarantee a suitable youth training place for every young person who wants one. We shall spend £676 million on youth training this year in England alone. That is a significant investment in the future of our young people and the nation's economy. It means, moreover, that there is no reason why young people need to be unemployed. We do not wish to encourage dependency on benefit at such an early age, and 16 and 17-year-olds are therefore generally not entitled to claim benefits; but we have always recognised that there must be exceptions, and those are provided for in the system.
First, young people in certain specified vulnerable groups, such as disabled young people, are allowed to claim income support. They will continue to be able to claim it after the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. Secondly, young people in prescribed categories, such as those who have recently left local authority care, will be able to claim JSA for a period intended to allow them to overcome their temporary


difficulties. That, too, continues the existing arrangements. Thirdly, young people who are waiting for a suitable youth training place will be able to claim JSA if they would otherwise suffer severe hardship. Again, that continues the existing arrangements.
Most young people are keen to better themselves and take their obligations seriously, but a minority persistently abuse the system. I set out the Government's policy intentions in Committee on 21 February, and also explained in Committee how we intended to deal with such abuses.
Young people wishing to claim JSA on severe hardship grounds must register with the careers service. As a result most will quickly be offered, and accept, suitable training under the YT guarantee. We recognise, however, that young people may not always be entirely clear about their vocational needs and aspirations: that is why young people receiving severe hardship payments who are in the guarantee group for the first time are allowed without penalty to turn down one offer of training or leave one training place early, for any reason whatever. But if they turn down two suitable youth training places, or leave two such places early without good cause—or a combination of the two—they will incur the penalty of a 40 per cent. reduction in the personal rate of JSA for two weeks. If they subsequently rejoin the guarantee group, a reduction will be applied on each occasion when they turn down a suitable training place, or leave one such place early—again, without good cause.
I believe that that represents a clear and fair system for young people, but such a system clearly requires safeguards. First, it will be the careers service that decides whether a youth training place is suitable for a young person. The careers service is bound by arrangements made under the Employment and Training Act 1973, as amended by the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, to provide young people with impartial guidance.
The careers service will not offer a young person a training place unless it meets his or her needs, circumstances and abilities. It will take into account anything that might limit the type of training that the young person could accept, including the young person's preference and aptitude, the level of approved qualifications for which he or she is aiming and the duration, proximity and availability of the training.
Secondly, we are introducing a new system of internal review that will take place before a direction is revoked on the ground that the young person has refused a suitable youth training place. The young person will be given the opportunity to request a re-examination of his case by the Employment Service before a direction is revoked. The Employment Service will consider all the circumstances of the case carefully; if it finds in the young person's favour, the direction will not be revoked, and the young person will continue to receive JSA.
If the young person is in a training place but is not happy with his training, he can take a number of courses of action—he can raise the matter with his training provider, with the training and enterprise council or with the careers service. Again, the facts of the case will be looked into carefully and, if appropriate, it may be decided that the training is not suitable and the trainee will then be found another place.
However, if the young person leaves a training place early and feels that he has good cause for doing so, he will be able to put his side of the case to the Employment Service. The circumstances of the case will be re-examined and, where good cause is established, a certificate will be issued by the Secretary of State and a copy given to the young person. If he reapplies for severe hardship under JSA, he will receive the full amount. However, if he does not have a certificate when he applies for a new direction, he will receive the reduced amount for the prescribed period of two weeks. If, subsequently, he gets a certificate, he can apply for a review under section 25 of the Administration Act to get back the amount of reduction that has been taken.
People receiving JSA are required to be available for and actively seeking employment. I want to explain how that will apply to 16 to 17-year-olds who are receiving severe hardship payments. They will be required to be available for and actively seeking work, but we believe that the priority for young people should be training or jobs with training. Jobs without training attached come a poor second. That is why 16 to 17-year-olds will not have to accept a job that does not have a suitable training content. If, however, they have abused the system by turning down or leaving youth training early without good cause and have suffered the reduction in the amount of JSA that I have described, they will at the same time lose their right to refuse offers of work on the ground that they do not contain training.
I believe that, taken together, the Government's youth training guarantee, backed by the clear sanctions, safeguards and protections that I have described, represents a fair and balanced package of measures for young people. The new clause is designed to put that into effect. I hope that, after debate, the House will support it.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, I oppose the new clause. I want to set it in the context of the debates that took place on two occasions in Committee, when we set out clear and specific evidence of the Government's failure in provision for young unemployed people.
Before doing that, I point out that during our debates on the Bill yesterday some 7,300 people were made redundant throughout the United Kingdom—from Northern Foods, Midland bank, Dewhurst and GCHQ, covering the retail, banking and manufacturing sectors. It is equivalent to 1,050 jobs an hour, 18 jobs a minute or one job for every three seconds while hon. Members were debating the Government's JSA proposals. Put in that context, we can see just how inadequate the Bill is not only in ensuring that people have a right to benefit, but, more importantly, in ensuring the necessary access and assets to get people back into the labour market.
The new clause is not about getting young people back into meaningful work; it is not about modernising and improving access to benefit and services for young people; it is not about tackling the causes of young people's poverty; it is not about tackling inequality and social and economic deprivation among young people; it is not about social investment in beleaguered working-class communities, from which many of the young unemployed come; and it is not about challenging the social alienation of youths who have been affected by unemployment—instead, the Bill is a vicious attack on young people. There is no other way to describe it.
Without any prior notice, the Government announced that they intended to change the rules for 16 to 17-year-olds—one of the most economically and socially deprived groups in the United Kingdom. This is the second occasion in under a decade when the Government have singled out young unemployed people for vicious and callous treatment. That process was commenced in 1988 by the Prime Minister when he was Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. Against all advice from people, organisations who represented young people, and the Government's own independent authorities, the Government took action to deny young people the right of access to benefit and to support services. As a consequence, young people in their thousands were left destitute. It was a national scandal of which the Government have testimony today. Hundreds, if not thousands, of vulnerable young people are still left without resources.
4.30 pm
It was against that background that Labour Members tabled a new clause on what should be in the jobseeker's agreement. It is interesting to note that, once again, the Minister has not taken the opportunity to publish the jobseeker's agreement for young people. The Government new clause does not deal with what should be in the agreement. It is simply about the way in which the Government will have a method of removing the right of vulnerable 16 to 17-year-olds to hardship payments.
In Committee, the Government made no effort to give the Opposition or even Conservative Back-Bench Members copies of the young person's agreement. On the last day that the Bill is in this place, we are still in the dark about what is contained in that agreement. The Minister either would not or could not clarify the differences between the adult Jobseekers Bill and the young person's version. Why is that the case? Why is she so unable or unwilling to provide basic information about the young jobseeker's agreement? Is it perhaps because of the fact that the Government had no intention at the outset of the Bill's passage to give any clear idea of their policy on 16 and 17-year-olds?
The new clause is a catch-all, and a nasty and malicious attempt to reduce the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds and to condemn them to even greater depths of destitution and exploitation. That boot camp philosophy towards the young unemployed is similar to that outlined by the Home Secretary on other issues. Suffice to say that the young persons jobseeker's agreement will be more punitive than the current arrangements for hardship payments, as the Minister admitted in her short introduction to the new clause. What will she do about the 1,000 vulnerable teenagers who have been turned away each month by the Government's covert campaign to cut support to them?
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) has asked parliamentary questions about the matter. Every month, 1,000 young people—vulnerable teenagers—are denied access to hardship payments. Those vulnerable young people are casualties not only of youth unemployment but of life—they have come out of care, are homeless or houseless, or have been physically or sexually abused. Each month, 1,000 of those people are still refused the right of access to hardship payments.
In the three summer months of last year, the latest period for which statistics are available, 6,190 teenagers who applied for hardship payments were turned away, an

average of 476 refusals per week. Nine months earlier, before the rules were tightened, the refusal rate was only about 200 a week. Between 1989 and 1994, claims for severe hardship had risen from around 250 per week to 2,700 per week, a rise of more than 1,000 per cent. The reason for that increase was the Government's decision in 1988 to remove access to benefits and other help for young 16 to 17-year-olds. The Opposition and people who represent young people have said that that decision has led to a large increase in poverty and destitution among young people. The figures show that to be the case.
What did the Secretary of State for Employment, when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, do to deal with that growing problem? He was so alarmed about the increase in successful claims that he sent a specialist team to investigate the severe hardship payment unit in Glasgow. It was revealed in confidential documents that the view of the then Chief Secretary, who is now the Secretary of State for Employment responsible for the new clause, was that officers were being too generous to 16 and 17-year-olds, not that there was hardship or any vulnerable young people. He denied that there was hardship or that young people were vulnerable. His sole intention in the exercise was to reduce Government expenditure on vulnerable young people. As a consequence, when he moved from his Treasury job to his present post, he regarded it as a priority to tackle young people. The major reason that the new clause has been proposed is to reduce the overall sum spent on hardship payments for vulnerable teenagers. It is an extension of his role when he was a Treasury Minister.

Mr. Oliver Heald: So that we can be clear about this, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the jobseeker's allowance should be available for all 16 to 17-year-olds or merely that all claims for hardship allowances should be allowed, whatever the circumstances?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until I get further into my speech. We are discussing a specific aspect of hardship relevant to the new clause. If the hon. Gentleman supports the new clause, he should at least read it. I know that he supports the Government absolutely in any circumstances and tends to crawl to the Minister at every opportunity, but he should not fail to read the new clause.

Ms Angela Eagle: Does my hon. Friend, like me, find it distasteful that Conservative Members seem to find this subject amusing and sit there laughing while he makes extremely important points about some of the most vulnerable teenagers?

Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is quite right, and it is merely a continuation of what happened in Committee, where Conservatives laughed through eight weeks of debate about the needs of young people. They laugh because they have no experience of the problems. It is not their children or grandchildren, nieces or nephews who will be affected by the changes; they are protected by privilege. They make sure that their children have access to training or education—they purchase it. This change in Government policy does not affect the children whom they come across, so they not only regard this as a joke and a jolly good wheeze, but are wholly uninterested in the needs of young people. If they were anything other


than disinterested, they would not have made such a proposal. The new clause would never have got out of the locker from which it came.
It is interesting to note that in Committee not one Conservative Member was prepared to stand up and defend the interests of 16 to 17-year-olds. As I told the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) yesterday with reference to one of his interventions, he should be ashamed of himself.
If the Government training programme is so successful, why has there been such a dramatic increase in the number of claims for severe hardship payments? The truth is that training for 16 to 17-year-olds has failed dramatically because teenagers are still experiencing severe problems in relation to their access to, and the quality of, training and their access to employment opportunities following training.
Only 31 per cent. of young people were in work six months after leaving training, and 30 per cent. leave training without a qualification or a credit towards a qualification. The percentage of young people leaving training who get a qualification or a credit has hardly increased since 1990 and, even now, barely half of all leavers come out of the scheme with some form of qualification.
The Government are not dealing with the crisis in training, with the crisis in the quality of training or with the lack of full-time employment opportunities at the end of training. Instead of tackling those problems by introducing new measures in the Bill, they blame the victim. The language in which the Minister of State proposed the new clause was revealing—it was the language of blame. She used negative language about young people and how they view the Government's proposals and talked of the need for coercive tactics in dealing with young people. Those coercive tactics bear no relation to the plight of young people and their attitudes to work and training, which I shall come to in a moment.
The figures that I quoted say nothing about the quality of training provided. The trends are set against the decline of more traditional forms of structured training for young people. For example, the number of trainees and apprenticeships in manufacturing has declined by 60 per cent. since 1979 and 150,000 apprenticeships in engineering have been lost since the Government began deregulating the market. What other Government, in changing their labour force, in trying to develop new skills and new techniques, in promoting engineering as part of a drive for exports and in trying to improve the country's economic competitiveness, would allow 150,000 skilled training posts to be lost? No other Government would allow that. It is economic madness and, in response to the needs of young people to develop career opportunities, it is callous in the extreme.
Those appalling outcomes show that this Government's policy is clearly not working. The Government must tackle the twin problems of youth unemployment and lack of skills among young people. The Minister's solution is simply to force young people on to schemes and deny them benefit if they refuse to go on them because the schemes are poor, unsuitable or exploitative.
The hon. Lady has created a serious problem with what she has said to me in Committee and confirmed today. We are to have two classes of schemes and attitudes

towards young people. Those who are lucky enough to have access to quality training and work opportunities will be given a guarantee that during that work experience, training and minimum standards will be maintained. But for those who, for various reasons, are unable to secure that quality training or access to employment opportunities, such standards will not be maintained.
The Government will force young people to take jobs that do not include any training or minimum standards whatever. What does that say to young people? What does that say about future investment in training for young people? If it is wrong to provide young people with jobs without training and minimum standards, it is wrong, full stop. The Government are therefore introducing a further measure of coercion with which to attack young people. They are not only reducing the right to hardship payments in 40 per cent. of cases, but they are attacking young people from a different angle. If young people have access to job opportunities, they cannot rely on the Department of Employment to protect them, in either quality of training or minimum standards.
That is perverse logic in anyone's language. It can serve only to encourage bad employers to operate outside the system and feel no obligation to provide training for our young people. Why should young people be given manual jobs with no skill element? Bad employers will simply need to sit and wait for the first opportunity that the Government take to throw young people out of the system. The first young people who are removed from the system will be automatically offered jobs by bad employers, who will not have to spend a penny on training or minimum standards and who will be outside the policing arrangements for dealing with and providing work for young people.
A similar argument arose yesterday about minimum pay. The Government are giving a green light once again for bad employers to exploit young workers through levels of pay, training and standards. What a set of options to offer young people.

Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman heard me say very clearly in the House yesterday that the Employment Service is not in the habit of and will not in the future be in the habit of offering people inappropriate vacancies. That applied to young people as well.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has been somewhat disingenuous, to say the least. In Committee, we spent hours giving her evidence of case after case of such practices. She could not refute such cases because they were either pending appeal, had already been heard or had been provided by citizens advice bureaux, the Coalition for Young People, the Unemployment Unit, youth organisations and churches. We could go on for hours today, but the point was well made in Committee. Young people feel abused by the system. The system does not meet their needs when they inevitably complain and the trainer or the organisation that placed them in that vulnerable position is not dealt with. The young person is guilty until proved innocent. Only when young people prove themselves innocent are they entitled to some form of benefit. Little or no action is taken against the employer who was exploitative in the first place.

Ms Eagle: Does my hon. Friend recall some of the comments made by Conservative Members in Committee


to the effect that, if training for young people were to consist of scrubbing floors, it would be acceptable because it would teach them discipline?

Mr. McCartney: A number of inane and disgraceful comments have been made as the Bill has progressed. It is interesting to note that the hon. Members who made them are not here. Perhaps the Government have made them take a vow of silence and stay away so that they do not embarrass the Government with their views on young people. The point was well made by my hon. Friend.
We have a dossier of Conservative Members' views on young people. On Second Reading, comments made by well-heeled, millionaire-type Tory Members of Parliament on young people who were seeking employment and could not get it were revealing. A range of views was expressed, and between now and the next election we intend to use them to the full. [Interruption.] Would the Whip, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), like me to embarrass his hon. Friends? Perhaps he would, but I will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] No. I have not gone soft, but I have not notified the hon. Members concerned that I intend to mention them in the Chamber. If the Minister would like to go and get them—I am sure that they are in the House—I would be more than happy to discuss their views on young people.
The point that I am trying to make—

Mr. Heald: rose—

Mr. McCartney: I shall give way in just a second.
The Government should be looking to the new options and training opportunities that they can provide to improve the system. The direct result of the Government new clause will be to halve the choice of training and opportunities for young people to look round and find a suitable scheme. The Minister confirmed that in her explanation of the new clause. The Government are reducing by 50 per cent. the chance of young people to come out of a scheme or a training opportunity when they find, having been placed in it for a range of reasons, that it is unsuitable.
Will any hardship payment or benefit be provided for young people who are waiting for a decision on an appeal? The Minister made some concession during her short introduction to the new clause when, for the first time, she referred to an internal review. I assume that that was introduced—it was not mentioned in Committee—to take account of what my hon. Friends and I said about the need to protect young people in the process of turning down an opportunity or coming out of a scheme in which they had already been placed. The hon. Lady did not say whether young people who are disallowed payments after that internal review will be given a formal opportunity for an appeal process. If they are given that opportunity, will they be allowed to claim some form of benefit until a decision is made?
How long will a claimant be given to consider a training offer? That is important, because it would be totally unacceptable if young people were told that, if they did not immediately accept a training position, action would be taken against them by the Department. A young person needs a period to reflect on the proposals put to him. How long will that period be? Will it be a day, two days, a week or a fortnight? Will the second offer of training be a different placement, as a matter of course? What I mean by that—

Miss Widdecombe: indicated assent.

Mr. McCartney: Then I shall not proceed with that question. It is important that people are not offered the same placement as they originally turned down.

Miss Widdecombe: I shall answer the question so as to get the facts on the record. The answer is that if someone has turned down a placement, the same placement will not be offered a second time.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister; that is another improvement since the Committee stage.
Where training is unsuitable or of poor quality, it becomes a euphemism for exploitation, and a cheap job with poverty pay. Training is a pretence for young people in such positions. In many areas assessment has become a sham, because in truth there is none. Few or no resources go into checking what happens during the training process.
In Committee we gave the Minister ample evidence of that state of affairs, and it is now incumbent on the Government to say clearly what investment and what procedures will be attached to the regulations under the new clause to ensure that young people are protected in their placements, and that a regular check is made on the quality of provision. Young people could then have confidence that they had an independent person to turn to if difficulties arose. Without such independence, they will continue to be left in dangerous circumstances.
We must also ensure that schemes are tailored to meet individual needs and requirements. The Minister suggested earlier that the Government might be moving in that direction. She said that there would be checks on trainers, and that the review procedures would be examined. Will that include ensuring that part and parcel of a young person's jobseeker's agreement will be total control by the young person over the final decision? I shall explain what I mean by that in a minute.
It is important that as the Government introduce the new arrangements they ensure that young people feel that they are part of the process and not simply a cog in the Government's wheel. The agreement should be made between two equal partners. When the Committee was to discuss the jobseeker's agreement per se, we tabled many amendments, which the Government rejected, to ensure that the balance of power between the Department's officers and the claimant would be equal, and that both parties would find the eventual agreement positive in terms of the individual's needs.
For the outcome to be successful for young people, they must feel from the outset that the agreement is as important to them and for their development as it is to the Department as a tool and a weapon for refusing them access to the benefits system. It is therefore vital that the Minister sets out clear and specific arrangements whereby young people can with some confidence enter discussions and negotiations on their agreement. I do not see why she cannot do that today. If it cannot be done at all, the agreement will not be worth the paper that it is written on, but will be seen as just another coercive document to be used against the young person.
Those of us who have teenage children, or whose children have already been through that difficult period in their lives, will know that teenagers react more positively if they are dealt with on the basis of an equal partnership. Growing up is difficult enough in the teenage years, but


it is even more difficult if people are out of work and feel alienated, and the person sitting opposite them seems totally unsympathetic to their position. Even worse, that person has the power to determine major aspects of the young people's lives, including eligibility for housing and access to income, training and employment. That is an uncomfortable position for anyone, let alone a vulnerable 16 or 17-year-old.
Department of Employment services must be seen not simply as a policing arrangement for young people, but as a positive aid to help to meet their needs. Rather than moving the goalposts towards assisting young people, the Government, both in Committee and now, by tabling the new clause, have done the opposite. They have moved the goalposts towards an indifferent approach that will alienate young people further and will, in a coercive way, undermine their abilities and their rights of access to the Department's services and to income, where they would have been eligible for income.
The new clause does not deal with the causes of distress and financial hardship for young people; it merely attempts to deal with the symptoms. The Government have chosen to ignore the real issues facing youngsters in the 1990s, who are the victims of the Government's economic failures.
There are three things to say about the new clause. First, it allows for a continuation of the exploitation of young people. Secondly, it does not protect minimum standards or guarantee quality training and education. Thirdly, it reduces choice for young people at a time when they should have more choice and more opportunities.
Why have the Government not used the opportunity to deal with the high failure rate, and with the number of people who do not complete the course and thus do not have appropriate qualifications? That is the real issue, and that is the damning indictment of the Government. For many young people, the current training programme has not worked. Yet rather than deal with those problems, the Government have decided to attack young people instead.
The Government have a poor record in dealing with young people, most of whom are desperate for work, training or a mixture of the two. If they sign the young jobseeker's agreement in good faith and then find that it is detrimental to their well-being, what will the Government do to ensure that sanctions are not taken against them, and that the Department acts on behalf of young people rather than on behalf of the people exploiting or attempting to exploit them?
The agreement will remove current safeguards against low-paid employment and benefit disqualification, and reduce young people's rights. Current Employment Service guidance states clearly that although advisers should ask claimants to sign, people should not be pressed to do so against their will. But now we know that the new agreement will do precisely that. Without a signature in advance on the agreement, young people's access to training and to a range of Department of Employment services will be reduced or ended.
The young person's JSA is to be used to increase pressure on young people who are especially vulnerable to take up low-paid work, with or without relevant training. The Minister confirmed that again today, because

she said that the Government will pressurise young people to take up opportunities where there is no training element. That is totally unacceptable.

Miss Widdecombe: At present there is no safeguard at all for a young person who wants to turn down a job on the ground that it does not contain training. We have now announced that in the future, unless someone has already turned down two training offers, he or she will be able to turn down a job on that ground. Only after someone has abused the system and either turned down or walked out of two training opportunities shall we revert to the present system, so we have improved the position for young people. Will the hon. Gentleman welcome that?

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady has not improved the position; she has created a further two-tier system, as she has again admitted. She uses the word "abuse", describing the young person as abusing the system, whereas we are talking about young people being abused and seeking assistance from the Department to have the exploitation stopped. At that point, when young people approach the Department, under the Minister's new proposals they will run the risk of losing their right to benefit.
The Minister's explanation went even further, because she said that if a young person wanted to get back into the system, any right to protection would have been forfeited. The hon. Lady is quite prepared to place young people in vulnerable positions, either because of the exploitative level of pay involved or because of the fact that there is no training element. She is offering skivvy jobs, with low pay and low levels of attainment. The Government's economic policies are undermining the rights of young people.
Young people have suffered particularly under the Government's policies. More than one in three 16 to 17-year-olds are paid less than £1.50 an hour. Almost half are paid less than the national insurance threshold of £57 per week, and the Government's proposals will force even more young people into skivvy pay and exploitation. Eight out of 10 jobs for 16-year-olds and almost seven out of 10 for 17-year-olds pay less than £2 per hour.
5 pm
Since 1990, hourly pay rates have fallen in real terms by 15 per cent. for 16-year-olds and 11 per cent. for 17-year-olds. The reason is that the Government withdrew the legal rights of protection for young people under 21 from exploitation by employers. The Government were the first in a century to remove the legal right of young people not to be paid exploitative rates of pay. Within a few years of that legal right being removed, young people's pay has fallen further. That is the Government's policy.
The Minister stated in Committee how the labour market conditions for young people who are entitled to severe hardship payments will be assessed. I want her to tell me what labour market conditions will have to be satisfied by 16 to 17-year-olds in order for them to qualify for hardship payments. Can she define what the market conditions will be? Will the conditions be more about satisfying her Department than about satisfying the needs of young people? There seems to be a dilemma for a young person who does not want to fall foul of the new clause. If a young person does not agree with the


Department of Employment's view about labour market conditions, a range of sanctions will be introduced against the young person, irrespective of his needs.
If we are serious about dealing with the needs of 16 and 17-year-olds, we must ensure that the conditions will assist them in relation to the labour market and will not assist the Government in their ideological drive to lower wages and reduce working conditions in the marketplace.

Miss Widdecombe: The Government want higher wages.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister knows that that is not the case, despite what she says from a sedentary position.
The Minister is the same hon. Lady who, yesterday, gleefully denied people on benefit the right to a minimum level of pay if they come off benefit to go into work. She is prepared to allow people to work for £1 an hour, or thereabouts. If they do not take such jobs, they could—under the jobseeker's agreement—lose their right to benefit after 13 weeks. What the Minister hates is that the public are beginning to realise what the consequences of the legislation will be for them, their families and their young children.
The Minister fails to accept evidence that has been provided to the Department with regard to 16 to 17-year-olds. Almost half those claiming severe hardship payments had no money when they claimed and were totally destitute. That situation has arisen since 1988, and was precisely predicted at that time. If the Government remove from young and vulnerable people their access to income, they will be left destitute.
One third of those young people had been thrown out of the family home, or had been living with relatives and friends who could no longer support them. One in 10 had been in care. Some 22 per cent. had been physically or sexually abused. Severe hardship claims have risen 20-fold between 1988 and 1994 because of the Government's callous proposals. Some 45 per cent. of all claimants have slept rough.
What an image for Great Britain in 1995. What an image of what we are doing to a generation of young people. Who would have believed that we would approach the turn of the century with a Government whose policies after 16 years deny young people who have been physically or sexually abused access to income? One in 10 young people who have been in care are being denied access to income, and 45 per cent. of 16 to 17-year-olds who need severe hardship payments are homeless and sleeping rough. What a crisis for our young people. What is the Government's response? It is a clause that denies young people further access to income and responsibility in terms of employment.
The Government have ignored not just that survey. The Coalition for Young People carried out a survey, which was presented to the Minister, of how young people view the activities of her Department. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of young people said that the Department of Employment had been unhelpful to them in its advice and assistance. A majority of young people felt that the Department was not on their side, and that the Department's staff were acting as police officers rather than as advocates on their behalf. A large proportion of young people did not, in the end, claim severe hardship payments because of the complexities that were put before them by the Employment Service and by benefit officers.
That is a damning indictment of how the Government view their relationship with young people. Given that background, it is no wonder that so many people are afraid of the new clause, which is one of a family of measures that are attacking young people. In a survey about young people's attitudes to the Benefits Agency, young people said that they felt intimidated, and that even when benefit was granted, they were made to feel that they had been done a favour. They complained that they were not listened to, and were often flatly refused permission to apply or seek advice.
That illustrates the need for young people to have an independent advocacy service, and the Minister has again failed to address that matter in relation to the jobseeker's agreement. At 16 or 17 years of age, many young people are not articulate and cannot speak up for themselves.
The Minister knows that the vast majority of the 16 to 17-year-olds with whom the Department will have to deal are young people who have been abused in one form or another. They will have come out of care, and may be suffering social stress because of the physical or sexual abuse that they had to endure. Many of them will be young people with perceived needs, but they may be unable to articulate those needs. It is those young people—the very young people whose interests we are supposed to be here to protect, enhance and promote—who will be undermined and who will lose out in the system that the Minister is proposing.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the vast majority of young people are keen to get work, and to take on appropriate training. Therefore, new clause 6 will apply to very few young people. Does he agree that there is a small minority of young people who are workshy, who do not want to go on training courses and who would prefer to sit at home and receive taxpayers' money? If the hon. Gentleman does not like new clause 6, how would the Labour party ensure that that small minority of young people who are idle were given incentives to do something with their lives?

Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the beginning of the debate, he would have heard me praising young people for their attempts to get work and to promote themselves.
It is completely untrue that lots of young people want to live off taxpayers' money. Tory Members such as the hon. Gentleman, who have a great deal of bile and negative attitudes towards unemployed young people, try to promote that fallacy, but it is not the case.

Mr. Streeter: What would Labour do?

Mr. McCartney: I shall come to that, if the hon. Gentleman will let me answer. The clause deals with young people who go to the Department or to their training provider and ask to be released from their training because of exploitation, or because the scheme is inappropriate to their needs due to disability or other factors. They may ask to be removed because they feel that the scheme proposed for them will not fulfil their needs.
The hon. Gentleman was present when I gave eloquent testimony to the number of cases in which young people had legitimately sought an alternative scheme. When the Minister introduced the jobseeker's scheme, she said that


she had been disappointed about the low outcomes. She has that problem because the schemes do not work for the vast majority of young people but, instead of dealing with the problem of poor schemes, the Government have decided to tackle the young people. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is so.

Miss Widdecombe: If the schemes are so appalling, how come 78 per cent. of those who complete them have a positive outcome, and how come the recent youth cohort survey shows that 78 per cent. of trainees rated their training as either excellent or good and only 5 per cent. rated it as poor? Ask the young people themselves, and they say that those schemes are good.

Mr. McCartney: The Minister severely doctors the figures. Like many other figures that the Department provides, the cohort of young people is not taken as a whole. The figures represent a percentage of those who completed training and do not reflect the total number who started or sought training. They are therefore highly selective. The real figure that the Minister should have quoted is that, on average, 50 per cent. of young people do not find success through the training schemes.
When the Minister introduced the young jobseeker's agreement in Committee, she expressed disappointment about the outcomes. That is on the record.

Miss Widdecombe: I expressed disappointment not about the outcomes, which are extremely good for those who complete their courses, but about the number who fail to complete. Before the hon. Gentleman tosses around figures of 50 per cent. failing to complete, will he acknowledge that one third of those people fail to complete only because they go into a job or a different sort of training scheme?

Mr. McCartney: Again, the Minister wriggles. She brought forward the proposal in Committee because the Government were unhappy about the outcomes. At that time, we challenged her for attacking the symptom rather than the cause. The cause is the fact that substantial numbers of young people are exploited through those schemes. The outcomes for them are far from perfect, because of either a lack of qualifications or a lack of job opportunity at the end of the course.
The Minister should have introduced proposals under the new clause to tackle those problems instead of introducing further draconian measures that undermine the needs of a specific group of young people with special needs and aspirations and, as the Government did in 1988, attacking 16 to 17-year-olds. This Government are good at attacking the vulnerable, and the proposal will affect another group of young people.
In Committee, the Government gave no sign of what the jobseeker's agreement for young people will include. My hon. Friends and I therefore tabled a new clause to try to get the Government to elucidate on the agreement. Is it not a scandal that the Bill is about to leave the House before the Government have published their proposals? They talk about parliamentary accountability, yet before publishing their proposals they pass a clause that undermines young people if they do not sign an agreement that the Government are not even prepared to bring to the House for scrutiny.
The Minister should clarify her intentions on a range of issues. For example, will the jobseeker's agreement deal with provisional help for housing needs? What is the outcome of the Government's survey on the needs of young people in terms of training and employment opportunities? The overwhelming majority of 16 to 17-year-olds are tied up with their housing needs. Those who are houseless or living in poor housing conditions invariably cannot or do not finish training schemes. Their housing needs are so overwhelming that they affect their capability of accepting training places or entering full-time employment.

Miss Widdecombe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that young people who are on benefit because, for example, they do not live at home and have good cause not to live at home, will get assistance through housing benefit and council tax benefit, in some cases up to 100 per cent? Will he acknowledge that that is a comprehensive package? To take advantage of it, a young person must simply abide by the rules that we set.

Mr. McCartney: Once again, the Minister's comments have a sting in the tail. She described all those safety nets and then spoiled it all by saying that a young person must have the right key to open the door. She admitted that all those safety nets will be withdrawn from young people if they fall out with her Department in respect of this agreement. Moreover, she has not said why her Department is still refusing 1,000 young people a month, who are currently homeless, houseless or coming out of care, access to hardship payments.

Miss Widdecombe: I answered the hon. Gentleman's specific point about young people coming out of care in my speech, which I should have thought was short enough for him to have taken it all in. I said, that for eight weeks, their position on JSA is protected and that, after that, they can establish severe hardship and remain on JSA. That was made extremely clear. Who are those young people who come out of care and somehow do not get a single penny?

Mr. McCartney: Again, the Minister attempts to paint a rosy picture. Those 1,000 young people a month exist. It is a Government figure—the Department's refusal rate. The issue is their inability to be accepted for hardship payments. They must be accepted before they can have access to those passported benefits. The Government are leaving thousands of young people in potential destitution, which the clause will exacerbate.
There is one question which I thought the Minister would answer this afternoon and which I raised in Committee. We pressed her on ensuring that young people had access to transport costs for training courses, and she said that it should be simply a matter for the training and enterprise councils, as trainers. That is not an acceptable answer. If she accepts that it is a reasonable proposition that young people should have that assistance, she should at least be prepared to ensure equality of access to the provision. Why should a young person in my area, for example, have access to it while a young person on exactly the same scheme in a borough down the road does not? It is either right to give access to transport costs or it is not. Given that the Minister has accepted the principle that it is right, she should ensure equality of access for young people, irrespective of where they live or where the scheme is held.
Through this proposal, the Government have sunk to a new low. During the Bill's passage over the past eight weeks, they have made numerous proposals that undermine the rights of the unemployed, including the loss of benefit after six instead of 12 months and cuts in people's benefit. The proposal before us, however, beats them all. By denying many young people, including those who have been sexually and physically abused, access to rights, the proposal will lead them to destitution. That is unacceptable under any circumstances.
Absolutely no one could defend the proposal. It shows how out of touch the Government have become with reality—with what is happening outside the House. They are out of touch with the public's perceptions and feelings about the way in which we want to invest in young people, not damage them as a result of the failure of Government policies. It is a mean and nasty proposal, which my colleagues and I will vigorously oppose in the Lobby tonight.

Ms Lynne: I shall be fairly brief. I want to tackle the detail of new clause 6 and obtain clarification about some of its wording.
Subsection (1)(a) appears to give wider powers to vary circumstances when benefit could be reduced than are provided for in subsection (3), which is confusing to someone who has just begun to consider the clause in detail. I wish to know what other circumstances the Government have in mind in which benefit could be reduced.

Mr. Richard Spring: It is gratifying to hear some comments from the Liberal Benches. It would be of great interest to us to know why, in view of the hon. Lady's interest and her comments, no attempt was made by the Liberals to participate in the Committee proceedings.

Ms Lynne: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House yesterday—it appears that he was not, at least for the majority of the debate—he would have heard my remarks on that subject. I was on the Committee that considered the Disability Discrimination Bill, which was just along the Corridor, and I was unable to attend both Committees. I would not have been allowed to serve on both Committees. However, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would realise that those of us who were not in Committee do have a right to question things. That is why we have Report stage. If he would not mind, I should like to make progress with some detailed questions about new clause 6.
Subsection (2)(b) allows either of two conditions to trigger the section, not both. Read with subsection (3)(a), that appears pointless because, if the direction is made under clause 13, and that has been revoked already, surely a young person will not be in receipt of anything anyway, and how is it possible to reduce nothing? I think that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) will find that that is so, but I should be grateful if the Minister would give me some guidance on that.

Miss Widdecombe: If a direction is revoked, the individual concerned, as now—it follows the same rules, although there is slightly different terminology—may make an immediate application for a new direction. That direction will be granted, provided that severe hardship is established. The question under consideration of revocation, therefore, refers to the former direction.
I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that, at present, someone who turns down a second offer theoretically leaves the guarantee group but can in fact be re-admitted immediately. Those provisions continue that.

Ms Lynne: Is the Minister saying that, if someone refuses the second offer, they are not entitld to benefit and they will be denied it?

Miss Widdecombe: If someone refuses a second offer, or leaves a scheme without good cause, the direction will be revoked. I suppose that the person could choose to wander away, but it is most unlikely. They would apply for a new direction. They would obtain that new direction, but for the first two weeks of it they would suffer the sanction. If subsequently it was decided that they had good cause and they obtained a Secretary of State's certificate, the amount of the reduction would be reinstated.

Ms Lynne: I am grateful to the Minister.
Perhaps I may now discuss certificates. Under subsection (3)(b), what will be the procedure for the issue of certificates? Subsection (4) mentions "good cause", and the Minister said that the Employment Service would decide. Would that be in consultation with the careers service?

Miss Widdecombe: As I said in my short introductory speech, the careers service will decide whether a course is suitable. It is important to understand that a person does not have to walk off a scheme and then ask, "Please may I have that scheme ruled unsuitable?" A person who is already on a scheme can apply to the careers service, saying that the scheme is not suitable. If it is then found not to be suitable, it will be as though that young person had not received the offer.

Ms Lynne: That is as a result of the Employment Service and the careers service consulting together. I am grateful for that.
Will a young person apply for a certificate before leaving the training service or can they apply retrospectively? Perhaps the Minister would prefer to answer when she replies to the debate, because otherwise she will be bobbing up and down.

Miss Widdecombe: I am bobbing up and down because the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) has a habit of taking up an awful lot of time. Therefore, I am trying to take every possible opportunity to answer the questions. The individual concerned—

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady chose to speak for a short time instead of half an hour.

Miss Widdecombe: If I had done that, no one else would have had a go.
The individual concerned will have a choice. He or she can either apply while on the scheme—in which case, if it was agreed, they would not suffer any sanction—or, having left the scheme, can claim good cause at that stage.

Ms Lynne: I am sorry to go through the new clause in such detail, but we need clarification of specific issues.
I wish to know what constitutes "good cause" in subsection (4). Will it be prescribed in regulations, as it is currently for over 18-year-olds, or will it be included in good cause provisions prescribed under clause 15 of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister would answer that later.
What should constitute good cause? Might something that damages the health of a young person be good cause? I believe that it should be. Might poor treatment by the employer or trainer, such as the wrong type of directions, the wrong way of issuing directions, a rude method of approaching that young person—[Interruption.] I assume that that would be debatable for a good cause, from what the Minister is saying from a sedentary position.
The Minister has discussed the inadequate training element—when a course does not increase skills. I assume that that would constitute a good cause if it could be proved that the training course had no skill incentive and that it provided no improvement when the young person emerged at the end.
The hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) spoke about homeless people. I am concerned about the effect on the completion of training of homeless young people being unable to obtain accommodation. More support and understanding should be given to a young homeless person in the completion of a training course, because if one is homeless it is extremely difficult to turn up on time or to do many things within a training course. Some young people need to visit a probation officer or to attend youth service appointments. I hope that those will be included in the good cause element. I assume that they will be, but I need clarification as we are debating a new clause.
I wish to mention various other matters, especially about homeless people, who have very special needs. I fear that, as a result of the implementation of the new clause, more young people would become homeless and more 16 to 17-year-olds would suffer severe hardship. Invariably, they obtain severe hardship grant because they cannot afford to pay for food and other essentials. If they are cut off from that benefit, they will be in a very difficult position.
I know that the Minister has explained all the reasons, but a small number of people will be cut off. I am extremely worried about them—worried about where they will go, where they will end up and whether they will end up turning to crime.

Miss Widdecombe: Under the clause which deals with training, they would not be cut off from benefit unless they decided not to apply and to re-enter the system. They would suffer a reduction in the personal rate of their benefit. That would not affect any other income-related benefit, such as housing benefit, that they might be receiving.

Ms Lynne: I understand that, and I am grateful.
I wish that the Government would take on board the idea of restoring benefit to all 16 to 17-year-olds, with proper training. Some of the training packages today are very good; some are extremely good, but some are poor. Instead of pushing youngsters into poor training that is often inadequate, with no job at the end of it, I wish that the Government would reconsider restoring benefit for all 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause seems to want to make it more difficult for young people instead of trying to get them back into the job market. I shall therefore vote against new clause 6.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I shall comment on one or two of the points made by the hon.
Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) in his 50 minutes of understated analysis. I asked a question in an intervention after the first 10 minutes of his speech. In the light of his observations about 16 to 18-year-olds and their financial circumstances and his assertion that not all claims for hardship were granted, I asked whether he was saying that the jobseeker's allowance should be available for all 16 to 18-year-olds or that all claims for hardship should be automatically allowed. The hon. Gentleman promised me that he would come to that, but 40 minutes later I have no more information than at the beginning of his speech. He has failed to answer the question.
5.30 pm
When I made that intervention the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said that it was monstrous for me to laugh when the hon. Member for Makerfield said that he would give his reasons later. I laughed because that was so characteristic of the hon. Gentleman. When an intervention is made and a question asked of him, we receive another 40 minutes of his speech, but the question is never fully answered.
It is right to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). At least she is prepared to say that she would extend the jobseeker's allowance to 16 to 18-year-olds. Of course, it is then incumbent on her to say how she would pay for that in the unlikely event of the Liberal party coming to power. It is a great pity that we did not have the benefit of her observations in Committee. I do not think that she is the only Liberal Member; there must be others who could have served on the Committee.

Ms Lynne: We will be giving a fully costed programme before the general election, as we did before the last general election, when we had a menu with prices, and we will have the same again. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) will be able to read it to see how we shall pay for the restoration of benefit to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Mr. Heald: It is reassuring to know that that ammunition will be available to us when the general election campaign begins.

Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: I shall continue, if I may.
On the subject of completing courses, all members of the Committee agreed that it was important that young people should obtain something worth while from their training. The point being made by my hon. Friends in Committee was not that young people should spend their training time scrubbing floors, but that they should be encouraged to complete their training courses. The proof of the pudding is in the eating; those who complete training courses, obtain successful outcomes. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, 78 per cent. of those who complete their courses achieve a successful outcome. The battle is not to provide excuses for young people, but to ensure that more young people complete their training courses.

Mr. Richard Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heald: No, I shall continue for a minute or two.
The difference between Conservative and Opposition members of the Committee was that we were able to field some members of the Committee with practical


experience as employers—people who had employed hundreds and, in one case, thousands of employees. They said that most young people—the vast majority—are hard workers who want to learn, but a small number are not prepared to work or train. My hon. Friends' advice was that a firmer and more structured approach should be adopted towards such young people, who should be encouraged to complete their courses.

Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only conclusion that we can draw from the speeches of Opposition Members is that they would impose no sanctions on young people who do not wish to train and do not choose to spend their time productively? The Opposition would allow them to sit at home, idle, at the taxpayer's expense.

Mr. Heald: Only yesterday we heard from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) that we should be looking for a responsible society. How is it responsible to tell young people that if they do not meet their obligations to the taxpayer they will still receive the money? How is it responsible to tell young people that if they make a hardship claim, but are not prepared to train, it makes no difference and they will still receive the money? What sort of message is the Labour party giving to young people? They are saying that it is a something-for-nothing society where one does not need to train or work, but can get something for nothing. What sort of society is that?
I know that the hon. Member for Makerfield would not deliberately seek to mislead us, but why did he say that young people receiving benefits for hardship would have housing difficulties, when housing benefit is passported from the allowance? Their council tax is paid. It is not as though young people who are living in hardship are not being catered for. The purpose of clause 13 is to deal with people who are under 18 and suffering from severe hardship.
The purpose of new clause 6 is not to deprive young people of the allowance completely, even when they have failed to complete training courses time and again. The Government make provision for young people in many ways, not just through the jobseeker's allowance. They do so through the general national vocational qualification initiatives and the modern apprenticeship scheme. The Government introduced those initiatives for the sole purpose of helping young people.
In his diatribe about unemployment, which is a serious problem, the hon. Member for Makerfield did not mention the fact that in the past year unemployment has fallen by 400,000 and there are 263,000 more full-time jobs. When he spoke of apprenticeships he did not mention the aspect of the 1960s that I remember. My recollection of the 1960s is that the trade unions were the first to want to scrap apprenticeships so that they could push up wages. In the 1960s the trade unions wanted a higher platform for the differentials. We have all learnt a lesson and, after all the years of Conservative government, the Trades Union Congress has learnt a bit of sense and strongly supports the modern apprenticeship scheme. I welcome that, as must all hon. Members.

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House any evidence for his statement about the attitude of trade unions to apprenticeships in the 1960s?

Mr. Heald: If the hon. Gentleman wants, he can discuss the subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), who was an apprentice in the 1960s and can tell the hon. Gentleman about it. I cannot expand on that subject for too long because this is a short debate—[Interruption.] I have one or two further points that I hope to make—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many conversations taking place and too many interruptions.

Mr. Heald: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Makerfield mentioned independent advocacy as though the Department of Employment should be treated as an enemy or an authority that did not have the interests of young people at heart. He spoke of the Department as though it were not prepared to listen to young people, take on board their concerns and be advocates for them.
I have been to numerous modern jobcentres as a member of the Select Committee on Employment. I very much regret the fact that the hon. Member for Wallasey joined the Committee a little too late to make some of those visits. Those centres had open plan offices with staff trained to take seriously the concerns of young people. It was not as the hon. Member for Makerfield described it. The staff are keen to offer advice and guidance. Mistakes may be made and the hon. Gentleman may be able to pick out occasional cases, but the staff as a whole should not be pilloried by the hon. Gentleman. The staff make a serious effort to help young people and to be sensitive and understanding.
The jobseeker's allowance is not currently extended to 16 to 18-year-olds. I hope that the hon. Member for Makerfield will, for once, be prepared to tell us the Labour party's policy on that. Is he saying that it should be extended to 16 to 18-year-olds? I notice that he does not intervene. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that each and every claim for hardship allowance should be allowed, regardless of the circumstances? That is the logic of his argument; but perhaps he would like to intervene to confirm it.

Mr. McCartney: It is not a public school debate and the hon. Gentleman should take it seriously. No young person should be left vulnerable and destitute; under the Government's policies, 1,000 young people per month are left in that position. New clause 6 will make the situation worse. It is the Government's proposal and the hon. Gentleman should either defend or oppose it. The Government are trying to undermine the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds and we will continue to defend them. If he would like to give us a general election, we will test our policies for young people against those of the Government.

Mr. Heald: The hon. Member for Makerfield flatters me: that decision is not up to me. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least attempting to reply to my questions, although once again there were no real answers.
I am happy to support new clause 6 because it will help those who have not helped themselves. In that spirit, I believe that all hon. Members will recognise that there is a place for a reduced payment, even among those who have not been prepared to assume the responsibilities involved with accepting taxpayers' money.

Ms Eagle: The hon. Gentleman talks about the responsibilities of those who take the taxpayers' money. Does he think that there are similar responsibilities on employers who deliberately pay low wages in the knowledge that they will be topped up with taxpayers' money? Do employers have responsibilities in that regard?

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for confirming that she believes that the Government should abolish family credit. I smiled at her remarks; perhaps she might like to smile occasionally. I said yesterday that I do not believe that the new Labour party will present that policy at the next general election. I would be jolly pleased if it did.
New clause 6 will assist young people. It is incumbent on a responsible Opposition to propose their own policies and it is sad that Labour Members have not been prepared to engage in constructive debate.

Mr. Keith Hill: The latest figures from the Department of Employment's own labour force survey show that in the summer of last year the unemployment rate for 16 and 17-year-olds in mainland Britain stood at 23.8 per cent. That general figure disguises considerable regional variations. In London, part of which I have the honour to represent in Parliament, the rate was the highest in the country—an enormous 38 per cent.We know from other sources that at a more local level unemployment among that age group is higher still: in some wards in my Streatham constituency it is as high as 60 per cent. and it is worrying to note that those are the wards with the highest concentrations of so-called ethnic minorities.
The labour force survey figures show the reality of unemployment among young people and expose the total inadequacy of the Government's reliance on the claimant count as an indicator of unemployment. In summer 1994 the Government's official figure for youth unemployment was 17,000 whereas the total figure was 180,000—10.5 times greater than the official count. Some 90 per cent. of young people aged 16 and 17 years had no form of income in the summer of last year—the highest figure recorded since 1988, when the Conservative Government abolished the general entitlement to benefit for that age group.
The tiny figure of 17,000 claimants receiving severe hardship or bridging allowance illustrates the extreme difficulties that young people face in securing any form of benefit. Many thousands of young people fall outside the youth training guarantee, making nonsense of the Government's official claim that no 16 or 17-year-olds are unemployed and that a benefit safety net is therefore unnecessary. The truth is that life is already very tough indeed for large numbers of young people and the provisions in new clause 6 are likely to make it even tougher.
Opposition Members have repeatedly expressed our concerns about the considerable new powers for arbitrary judgment that the Bill will confer on Employment Service

officials. The most obvious of those is the discretion that the Bill allows for judgment about the behaviour and appearance of claimants.
5.45 pm
The provision for benefit sanctions if a young person leaves a training programme "without good cause" raises further anxieties. What constitutes "good cause" and who makes that decision? What assistance will young people receive in plotting their way through the rules minefield described by the Minister in her opening speech? How long will young people be made scapegoats because of the obvious inadequacy of training provision?
Accounts of weaknesses in the youth training provision are legion. I will relate just three cases supplied by the Coalition on Young People and Social Security. A youth housing association and hostel provider in Gloucester stated:
In the last 12 months none of our residents has secured a job at the end"—

of a training scheme placement—
and probably 95 per cent. are on placements that were not indicated as a choice".

A National Children's Home project in Scotland reported:
Three young people on YT at present on occasion have been sent home at 9.30 after arriving at 9.00 and being told there is nothing for them to do. No incentive is given to attend and little commitment to training is shown by the trainers. The young person is not in a position to leave as Income Support would not automatically be paid".

The youth housing association and hostel provider in Gloucester continued:
One resident has not found a placement and just goes in to the office for training. He is often sent home after a morning, and feels it is a waste of time".

It is not surprising, therefore, that the outturn in terms of job placements is both limited and highly variable. Even for those who have completed their job training, on average only one in three finds employment and the figure can be as low as one in five. The latter figure applies to the East London training and enterprise council. Of course, they are lucky to have a TEC in east London; we have lost our TEC in south London and the Government have made no effort to replace that essential service in an area of massive deprivation.

It is also not surprising that there is a great deal of scepticism about the programmes and that many young people simply abandon them in disgust. Are we to conclude that the Government wish to coerce young people into attendance at often worthless courses by means of the threat of benefit sanctions as set out in the new clause? The Government have created mass unemployment among young people and they have responded to that crisis with a totally inadequate training provision.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. How would he compare the situation in the UK with that in France or Spain, where youth unemployment is far higher although those Governments have pursued the policies that he advocates?

Mr. Hill: We have heard that argument many times before. The reality is that we would be comparing different situations with different historical bases.

Mr. Burden: On Tuesday 7 February the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) made exactly the


same point in Committee. I asked him how he knew those unemployment rates as the Government officially do not count the figures for people between 16 and 18. He replied that he would be happy to provide me with further information when he had researched the matter further. I wonder whether he has done so.

Mr. Hill: While we are talking about figures that we do know, I must confess that during the two months of our deliberations on the matter I was waiting for the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) to intervene on me, as he has intervened on other Opposition Members, to talk about the Government's remarkable success in reducing unemployment in my constituency. As he has not done that, I will put it on record that unemployment in Streatham is 16.7 per cent.—twice the national average—and male unemployment is 22.5 per cent. In the three years since the last general election, the unemployment rate in Streatham has risen by 10 per cent. and since 1990 it has risen by 100 per cent. So there can be no rejoicing about a reduction of unemployment in Streatham. On the contrary, I make a rock solid prediction that new Labour will bury old Tory at the next general election with an electoral avalanche because of old Tory's appalling performance on unemployment in Streatham and in south London generally.
In conclusion, the young want meaningful training at work. They are the victims of the Government's failure and they will be further victimised as a result of new clause 6. That is why we oppose it.

Mr. Burden: Yesterday I questioned the legality of the Bill under article 4 of the European convention on human rights because, under menace of penalty, the Bill seeks to force people into jobs, irrespective of the level of remuneration being totally unreasonable.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far, I remind him that we are dealing with one new clause and his remarks must relate to it.

Mr. Burden: I was about to say that new clause 6 falls foul of precisely the same problem. Again, under menace of penalty, it is trying to force young people into something that they do not wish to do and which would be unreasonable.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged that new clause 6 affects only a limited number of young people. The main reason for that, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, is that the Government have ruled out the vast majority of young people from access to benefits.
When Conservative Members glibly talk about the alleged levels of youth unemployment in Britain compared with other countries they should get their facts right or at least be consistent with their own Ministers. I repeat what I said in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost would be of restoring income support for 16 and 17-year-olds. The Minister's reply was that he did not know. He said:
The information is not available."—[Official Report, 3 February 1995; Vol. 253, c. 878.]
The Government do not know how much it would cost to reinstate income support. The only conclusion we can draw from that is that they do not know how many

unemployed young people there are between the ages of 16 and 18. Estimates of youth unemployment in Britain have been given which have yet to be disproved by Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) gave the figure according to the International Labour Organisation: about 180,000.
A large number of young people are excluded from benefit, but a small number of young people could possibly receive benefit in particular circumstances—lone parents, people with disabilities, and those who qualify for severe hardship payments.We should be clear about the severe hardship payments that Conservative Members want to remove. We are talking about the princely sum of £27.50 for those who live at home and £36.15 for those who live away from home. I have yet to find anyone with no income who is not in severe hardship, but according to Conservative Members the young person apparently has to prove severe hardship. That is matter of great concern to young people.
A recent report by the Coalition on Young People and Social Security draws attention to the real problems of access to the severe hardship allowance. A selection of reasons was given by young people for failure to complete claims. I will read out a few examples:
He did not complete his claim because the jargon used was too difficult, and he felt they were talking over his head … Claimants often get confused. They are intimidated by the procedures … One young man became annoyed at the lack of direct, clear, concise information and despaired at the procedures … One of our clients was appalled by the 'hassles' involved in making a claim. Enquiries were made into his relationship with his male flatmate who was working. If the DSS could prove they were a couple, no benefit would be payable. They weren't a couple, but he was very angry.
I wonder why that has occurred. Conservative Members accuse us of blaming the staff of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency, but we have never said any such thing; it seems that the procedures and the cultures of the organisation, imposed from the highest level, are at fault.
When the Minister replies to the debate, will she clarify one point? It has been drawn to my attention—I hope that it is wrong—that the guidance procedures and, indeed, the blueprint issued to Employment Service officers implementing the jobseeker's allowance severe hardship provisions actually states that it has to be the young person who requests and applies for a severe hardship payment, and that it is not the role of a member of staff interviewing young unemployed people and finding out about their circumstances to suggest that they may qualify for severe hardship payment. I hope that the Minister will clarify that. It has certainly been put to me there are procedures which suggest that it has to be the young person who asks and it cannot be a member of staff who offers advice. If that is true, it is a real problem. Those are the people who are threatened by the new clause, along with lone parents and people with disabilities.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) said that we were on the wrong track when we discussed the number of young people who did not achieve qualifications. I shall say something about that in a moment. First, I want to take up his point that 70 per cent. of young people complete their training courses.

Mr. Heald: I said that 70 per cent. achieve qualifications.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman said that 70 per cent. emerge with qualifications. I am grateful for that


intervention as without it my point would have had no force whatever. There is another way of looking at that statistic: it means that 30 per cent. of young people who complete training courses do not emerge with qualifications. That is a high and worrying statistic and it might have been more constructive if Conservative Members had tried to do something about that statistic, instead of penalising young people who fall foul of the system.
Some 30 per cent. of people who complete training courses do not get a qualification. In total, about 50 per cent. do not end up with a qualification either because they drop out or because they fail to achieve a qualification. Conservative Members say that that is a problem for the young people themselves, but Labour Members disagree with that analysis and we are not alone in doing so.
Studies have suggested that the United Kingdom's performance in vocational training is much worse than that in Germany, producing 50 per cent. fewer people with qualifications, particularly at the lower technical levels. That information was from the Centre for Economic Performance. Literacy and numeracy is cited as a problem for United Kingdom employers and is particularly acute among young people, according to the British Chamber of Commerce. The introduction of non-vocational qualifications has not been smooth and the system is still facing teething troubles, being considered "inappropriate" for unemployed school leavers. That comes from the National Institute Economic Review 1994. In 1993, Professor Smithers from Manchester university, an expert in the field, described the introduction of national vocational qualifications as
a disaster of epic proportions".
There are major problems with the quality of training provided in Britain. Rather than do something about that, however, the Government prefer to attack young people. The Government's response is to say, "Hang in there—don't worry about the quality of the training because if you give it up you risk losing benefit."
6 pm
I was pleased to hear the Minister of State say today that there would be a review. If a young person said that training was inappropriate or unsuitable, procedures would be instituted for a review. I was also pleased that, in answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), the Minister gave examples of what might be good cause for dropping out from a course, including conditions at the workplace, such as health considerations, and so on.
I want to test whether Conservative Members are as free thinking as they claim. Because of the problems of training provision, particularly with regard to conditions in training situations for many young people, many trade unions take their responsibilities to trainees very seriously. They make a major effort to represent trainees in the workplace and to improve their conditions, and they do a good job.When the Minister replies, will she say whether the refusal of an employer to recognise a trade union at a workplace in which a trainee was operating, even if the request for trade union representation was supported by a majority of employees and wished for by the trainee who was a member of it, would or could be good cause for dropping out of a training course?
The Government seem to recognise that some things would constitute good cause for giving up a particular training course that was not of good quality. What worries me about that is that if the Government are prepared to institute such procedures and if they are as reliable as the Government say that they are, why, when Opposition Members sought to introduce an amendment in Committee to ensure that training is of a minimum acceptable quality, did every Conservative Member who was present on that day vote against it? It was rejected by 10 votes to nine.
That was the one time in Committee that we could have inserted into the Bill a provision specifying that there should at least be a bottom line with minimum quality conditions for training. The amendment was not prescriptive. It did not set out conditions which had to be met. It simply said that minimum conditions should be prescribed for training. That could be dealt with by way of regulations. Conservative Members love regulations. The Bill is littered with powers for Ministers to specify this or that by way of regulation. Yet when it came to an amendment saying that there should be an obligation on the Government to lay down minimum conditions for quality of training, the Government refused to accept it and they were backed up in that refusal by every Conservative Member who was present that day.
I hope that what the Minister is saying is right. I hope that the reviews do work. Given the Government's performance in Committee and the sort of arguments that Conservative Members have put forward today, however, I am sceptical about that and young people will be fairly sceptical about it, too. They know that that same Government wiped them out from the unemployment statistics, removed a large majority of them from any access to benefit at all and, when they had the chance to lay down proper training provisions, did not do so. And the same Government have turned a blind eye to all the evidence that they have received from bodies such as the Coalition on Young People and Social Security, Youth Aid and the citizens advice bureaux on the operation of the severe hardship provisions and the lack of quality training in Britain.
All those groups have provided ample evidence of the real problems facing young people today. Despite all that evidence, however, the Government have failed on Report to insert any provision in the Bill to improve the quality of training. All that they have chosen to insert is a measure which will penalise young people. Faced with that, I am pretty sceptical about the Government's motives and I am convinced that young people outside will be as well.

Mr. Streeter: This is also the Government who have enabled more young people than ever before in the history of this nation to take part in higher and further education and to further their own lives. This is the Government who have done more in the past two years than any Government in history to bring unemployment down and to create jobs for young people.
It is no wonder that members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill do not understand the labour market. They do not understand that young people want meaningful jobs. Not one of them has had any experience of the private sector or of job creation. Before they came into the House, all of them languished in the public sector.
I support new clause 6. I understand that the Labour party opposes it, but Labour Members should tell us what sanctions the Labour party would incorporate in its proposals for the small minority of young people who prefer to sit at home, who do not want to get a job or to go on to higher or further education, who want to leave school but are not prepared to go on reasonable training courses, in order to ensure that they have the incentive to take training for their own benefit.
I visit many schools in my constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, as do you. Most young people are super. They are highly motivated. They know that they want to train for their own benefit and they are committed to their careers. But we have to accept that a small minority of young people drift through life between the ages of 16 and 18. I was concerned recently to learn about some of the messages of despair and hopelessness sent out by some modern day pop groups. We have heard recently of the suicide of Kurt Cobain and one or two other music leaders of this generation.
What kind of example is it to say to young people, as the Labour party appears to be saying in its opposition to new clause 6, that it is all right to stay at home, to remain idle and to take taxpayers' money while doing nothing with their lives—

Ms Eagle: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too much into the hit parade and grunge, will he explain why the Bill treats all those who are unemployed as if they are part of the minority who are work shy about whom he is talking? Is that a fair attitude to take to the entire pool of the unemployed?

Mr. Streeter: I am delighted to reply to that intervention. Young people who are motivated to train, to obtain jobs or to stay on in higher and further education can survive blissfully under these provisions. These provisions are intended for the small minority who do not wish to better their own lives. Anyone who is keen to motivate himself and take up reasonable training need not worry in the slightest about the proposals. That is the one thing that Labour Members do not understand. They cannot tell us how they would deal with the minority of people who prefer to remain idle at home wasting their lives at taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an important principle? The Opposition say that this is a vicious attack on young people. They claim to be the defender of young people. Establishing that is an absolute principle in their opposition to the Bill. Is it not immoral that the Labour party gives absolutely no indication of what it would do in the circumstances to put the matter right?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a valuable point. I would go further: the Labour party will not even tell us today—in the unlikely event of it getting into Government—whether it would repeal the measures in the proposed legislation with which it strongly disagrees. Much rhetoric has floated across the Chamber, but Labour Members do not have the guts to tell us tonight whether they would repeal the measures set out in the Bill.
It is important that we encourage our young people to make the best of their lives. They are our seed corn. We should invest in their lives for the sake of the nation and

for their own sake. The Labour party has offered nothing tonight to help young people in this country but has continued to undermine them.
I strongly support the new clause and this measure.

Mr. McCartney: On behalf of the Opposition, I shall take a few moments of the House's time before the Minister replies for the Government.
I thank all my hon. Friends for the excellent contributions that they made following the devastating attacks by the Government in Committee. As in Committee, the Government have shown no concern for the position of young people. They have shown extreme callousness in dealing with these matters and an inability even to understand the extent of the problems faced by many vulnerable young people as a consequence of unemployment and displacement in their lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) made a professional and clinical exposure of Government failures in housing and employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) highlighted the shambolic nature of the Government's knowledge of unemployed young people.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) has come to be known by Opposition Members as an absolute jobseeker—for a position on the Government Front Bench. One cannot think of any occasion when the hon. Gentleman has not been a supporter of the Government. Even when they fly in the face of overwhelming evidence, he is there. He is one of the faithful going down with the ship. In his contribution, he tried to equate the needs of young people in the 1990s with some spurious attack on trade unions in the 1960s. I speak as someone who was lucky enough in the 1960s to be able to have training in the private sector. I lived and worked in the private sector. It is interesting for children of the 1960s to remember that, when we left school on the Friday, we could start work on the Monday. In fact, over Saturday and Sunday I remember that I had two choices of apprenticeships: I could have been either an apprentice seamen or an electrician in the colliery.
I decided to be an apprentice at sea. In the intervening period after leaving school, I trained as a seaman at the National Sea Training college at Gravesend. I had another job during that summer period—at a proper rate of pay, because it was a trade union-organised place. That was in 1967—a wonderful year as I remember, with flower power and all the rest of it.
Today's young people are the first generation not to be guaranteed a training or job opportunity when they leave school. They are the first generation of people who are unable to be certain that they will advance in social and economic terms, unlike their parents or grandparents. That is the Government's responsibility. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North said that the measure was necessary to stop abuse, yet he gave no evidence, not a single case. How many cases have there been? What is the cost of the abuse? Ministers, with all the panoply of the civil service and two of the largest Government Departments—the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security—could not give us a single instance of abuse with regard to 16 and 17-year-olds. Not a single penny has been misused, yet they propose to undermine the rights of 16 and 17-year-olds.
As for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), not only was he patronising and full of cliches, but he continued where he left off in the Bill. He reminded me of something that Mae West once said: "His mother should have thrown him away and kept the stork." Until tonight, I did not realise who she was speaking about. It is obviously the hon. Gentleman. He is the man who said that young people were living blissfully on £27.50. The hon. Gentleman, each and every lunchtime or evening, will spend more on a meal than we expect young people to live on for a week. That is the reality. He said that they should be looking for meaningful jobs.
The Government have destroyed 3 million full-time jobs in the past 16 years. There have been two recessions in the lifetime of the Government. Some 40 per cent. of manufacturing industry has closed; 150,000 apprenticeships have been lost; and sackings in privatised industry have so far cost the taxpayer £1 billion in unemployment benefit—and the hon. Gentleman talks about meaningful jobs. After 16 years of Tory Government, he talked about the drug culture undermining young people. Thatcherite policies have led us to the crime and drug culture, denying opportunities to thousands of our young people.

Ms Rachel Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has been directly responsible for encouraging the Government to cut 10,000 jobs from the Rosyth area by constantly calling for defence cuts to be made in Scotland and not in his part of England? That shows me that he is not, in fact, in favour of a United Kingdom but just wants everything centred on Plymouth.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman shows callous disregard to anyone seeking employment.
The Minister herself has revealed again today not only callous indifference to the situation but the Government's sanctimonious view of the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. For every year in which the Conservative Government have continued, there have been more and more "undeserving" poor. It is all an excuse to exclude people from the system. So far this year, benefit disqualifications have doubled to 113,000 because of inadequate job searches. It is interesting to note that the Economic and Social Research Council said that the problem is one not of a lack of commitment or keenness by young people but of insufficient jobs in training places being provided by the Government. That is the truth. The problem is simply that the Government do not care after 16 years about the future of our young people. For that reason, the Government will go down at the next election, and deservedly so, and we will have a Labour Government, who will invest in and have a commitment to all our young people.

Miss Widdecombe: The worth of the new clause is proved by the utter feebleness of the debate from Opposition Front Benchers. First, they started by talking about 7,900 jobs that have been lost. Will they tell us, please, about the 1.9 million jobs into which people were placed last year? Will they tell us how many jobs have been created per new day? No, they want to talk only

about lost jobs. They want only to depress people, to trade on people's misery, for political advantage. We can always tell how well things are going by how glum and dismal the Opposition look.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) said that youth unemployment was about 20 per cent. Let us look at the very labour force survey that he used. Let us look at the International Labour Organisation definition of unemployment. It includes, as he will know if he studies the survey more closely, many people who are in full-time education. If he looks at the latest figures for autumn 1994 in the same survey, he will see that only 8 per cent.—I repeat, 8 per cent.—of 16 and 17-year-olds were not in education, in jobs or in training. Furthermore, he tried to depress his constituents by saying that the Government, after the South Thames TEC had gone into liquidation, were making no effort to replace it or to cover the provision that it had made. He knows that that is not accurate. Indeed, were I not constrained by parliamentary tradition I might use a word other than "not accurate".
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) asked whether it was true that guidance had been issued saying that officers of the Benefits Agency or the Department of Employment may not raise the issue of whether a young person should apply for benefit. I am pleased to confirm that no such guidance has been issued, nor will it be. At present, some severe hardship payments are dealt with by the Benefits Agency. The agency has specialised staff to help young people to make their claims, and the careers service is under a contractual obligation to endeavour to identify potential benefit claimants and then refer them to the appropriate agency. The reverse of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is true; once again, an attempt to frighten the vulnerable simply will not work.
The hon. Member for Northfield also asked whether it would count as "good cause" if a young person turned down a training place because the employer involved did not recognise a trade union. That is most unlikely to constitute good cause. If a trade dispute were in progress, we should probably take into account exactly the same considerations as we apply to adults in a different clause.
The hon. Member for Makerfield said that our youth cohort study was based on a selective sample. In fact, it was based on responses to postal questionnaires from between 15,000 and 20,000 16 and 17-year-olds. Moreover, it was conducted on behalf of the Department of Employment and the Department for Education by Social and Community Planning Research. Is the hon. Gentleman impugning that body? If he is, he will have to refute—

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in a minute.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in a minute.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in a minute! Sit down.

Mr. McCartney: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows full well that if the Minister, or any other hon. Member, does not give way he must resume his seat.

Miss Widdecombe: I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for containing this disorderly behaviour.


I was merely saying to the hon. Member for Makerfield that if he wished to impugn the veracity of the research of the body to which I referred, he would be impugning a good deal that he often prays in aid. I shall now give way to him.

Mr. McCartney: Those whose veracity I am impugning are the hon. Lady and other Ministers. The fact is that, as Mr. Maples said, no one believes what they say any more.

Miss Widdecombe: If that is all that the hon. Gentleman can say, it is clear that what he has said about our cohort survey has been utterly defeated. Moreover, the fact that he was forced to struggle in that way says something about the hopeless quality of the Opposition—a hopeless quality that we have observed throughout the debate.
The hon. Gentleman told us that some young people could not make the seriousness of their position understood. He did not tell us that there were specially trained officers to assess all applications by 16 and 17-year-olds—officers attached to every branch of the Benefits Agency, who will be attached to jobcentres under the new rules. It is simply not true that, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, young people leaving care are denied benefit and left on the streets; it is not true that, as he told us, housing is not taken into account; it is not true that, as he told us so many times, we force people on to inadequate training schemes.
Let us be clear about this. I repeat what I said earlier: 78 per cent. of trainees who complete their training go on to jobs, further education or training. That cannot be poor quality. The YT programme provides quality training to NVQ2 level, and 71 per cent. of trainees who complete their planned training in England and Wales obtain qualifications. Those are the facts, together with the fact that I have just mentioned: the cohort study showed that 78 per cent. of respondents considered their training either excellent or good.
Young people themselves reject the Opposition's claim that training is inadequate. The Opposition's own ILO survey, to which the Trades Union Congress is so attached, rejects their claim that more young people are unemployed than we say. We have lower than average youth unemployment.
The fact is that, in two hours—of which the hon. Member for Makerfield took nearly an hour—the Opposition have established not a single fact that would cause any rational person to reject the new clause. I urge the House to support it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 230.

Division No. 113]
[6.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bates, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Batiste, Spencer


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Bowden, Sir Andrew





Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Grylls, Sir Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Bright, Sir Graham
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Churchill, Mr
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coe, Sebastian
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Day, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dicks, Terry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lightbown, David


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Faber, David
Lord, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, Dudley
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector






Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spink, Dr Robert


Nelson, Anthony
Spring, Richard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sproat, Iain


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stephen, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stewart, Allan


Norris, Steve
Streeter, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sumberg, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Trend, Michael


Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sackville, Tom
Whittingdale, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Dr. Liam Fox and


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mr. David Willetts.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Burden, Richard


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Callaghan, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D N


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Austin-Walker, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Chidgey, David


Barnes, Harry
Chisholm, Malcolm


Barron, Kevin
Church, Judith


Battle, John
Clapham, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clelland, David


Benton, Joe
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Berry, Roger
Coffey, Ann


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Blunkett, David
Connarty, Michael


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Bradley, Keith
Corston, Jean


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cousins, Jim





Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dafis, Cynog
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davidson, Ian
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
McFall, John


Denham, John
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Don
Mackinlay, Andrew


Donohoe, Brian H
McMaster, Gordon


Dowd, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Maddock, Diana


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mandelson, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Enright, Derek
Martlew, Eric


Etherington, Bill
Maxton, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Milburn, Alan


Foulkes, George
Miller, Andrew


Fraser, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Fyfe, Maria
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Galbraith, Sam
Morgan, Rhodri


Galloway, George
Morley, Elliot


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Garrett, John
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gerrard, Neil
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mudie, George


Godsiff, Roger
Mullin, Chris


Gordon, Mildred
Murphy, Paul


Graham, Thomas
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Hara, Edward


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Olner, Bill


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Neill, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gunnell, John
Patchett, Terry


Hall, Mike
Pearson, Ian


Hanson, David
Pickthall, Colin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pope, Greg


Henderson, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Heppell, John
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Prentice, Gordon


Hinchliffe, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hoey, Kate
Primarolo, Dawn


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Purchase, Ken


Hoon, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Radice, Giles


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Doug
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rendel, David


Hutton, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Ingram, Adam
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rooker, Jeff


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rooney, Terry


Jamieson, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Ruddock, Joan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sheerman, Barry


Jowell, Tessa
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Short, Clare


Kennedy, Jane
Simpson, Alan


Khabra, Piara S
Skinner, Dennis


Kilfoyle, Peter
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litherland, Robert
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Soley, Clive






Spearing, Nigel
Turner, Dennis


Spellar, John
Vaz, Keith


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Watson, Mike


Steinberg, Gerry
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Wise, Audrey


Straw, Jack
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tipping, Paddy
Mr. John Owen Jones and


Touhig, Don
Mr. John Cummings.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Order for Third Reading read.

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I dearly wish that, during the proceedings on the Bill, both in Committee and in the House, the shadow Chancellor had been present because, in their opposition to the Bill, Labour Members fell back on their usual recourse—to promise, to oppose and to table amendments that would cost money. Let us consider what they asked us to do, and then ask them whether they would undertake to do it.
Labour Members wanted to change our rates of contribution, at a cost of £30 million. They wanted to reintroduce an age limit of 55, at a cost of £40 million. They wanted to carry back adult dependant increases, at a cost of £10 million. They wanted a disregard for earnings, at a cost of £15 million in jobseeker's allowance, £50 million in housing benefit and £10 million in council tax benefit—

Mr. Kevin Barron: Rubbish.

Miss Widdecombe: It would have been rubbish if we had accepted the amendments.
Labour Members wanted to remove the waiting days for income-based JSA, at a cost of £40 million. They wanted to extend further education guided learning hours to 21 a week, at a cost of £40 million. They opposed savings of £180 million. That is the Labour party at its unreconstructed worst. Its answer to everything is, "Spend, spend, spend." When we ask whether the Labour party will do the spending, suddenly it has no policies. It opposes what we are doing, but has nothing to put in its place. At least the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) is honest. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will the House quieten down a bit? I remind the Minister that speeches must deal with the Bill.

Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the provisions that we have introduced are in the Bill. The Labour party opposes them. The proposals that it would like to include would cost all those millions of pounds.
I was congratulating the hon. Member for Rochdale on her honesty. She made a pledge that an incoming Liberal Government would restore the contribution from six

months to 12 months. She made other pledges to restore benefit for 16 to 17-year-olds. The only trouble is that there will never be a Liberal Government. Oh, the joys of irresponsibility, of being able to promise everything, and of knowing that one will never be called on to deliver a thing.
The Bill provides for many winners, whom we never heard about. We did not hear the Opposition congratulate us on providing for 150,000 winners through the back-to-work bonus, for 120,000 winners through the national insurance contribution holiday, for 2,000 winners through the employment on trial scheme, for 50,000 winners through the £10 couples disregard, for 10,000 winners through national insurance credits for all work under 16 hours, and for even more winners through the 24-hour work rule. No, no, no—we heard nothing from Opposition Members about all those winners, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) welcomed them.
The Bill provides a proper system whereby an agreement exists between the taxpayer and the person who takes benefits that the taxpayer pays for.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Widdecombe: I had not realised that my hon. Friend was trying to intervene. There was so much racket coming from the Opposition.

Mr. Howarth: Of course I welcome the winners, as my hon. Friend describes them, and any advantages for unemployed people that emerge from the Bill. She catalogued a series of additional costs that might be incurred, which add up to some hundreds of millions of pounds. Will she confirm that, in consequence of the national insurance contributions increase that has been placed on employees, the Government will raise an extra £2.2 billion? Does she look forward to a world of benefit cuts and boot camps?

Miss Widdecombe: I have made no such proposals for such a dismal world. My hon. Friend refers to the amounts raised in national insurance contributions, but he knows that the fund must be kept in balance and that we spend today what we collect today. He knows that it is a "pay as you go" fund, and that any Government must keep the fund in balance. He should welcome the prudence of the Government, who actually keep it in balance.
I am looking forward not to a world, as my hon. Friend described it, of benefit cuts, but to a world of focused and targeted benefits for people in need. That is the sort of world we want to see, and that is proposed in the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the winners, which is a jolly sight more than the Opposition have done. I urge the House to support this entirely prudent, just and caring measure.

Mr. Keith Bradley: Time is short, so I shall not indulge in the illogical rantings and ravings of the Minister. From the start, and throughout the passage of the Bill, the Labour party set out to scrutinise the legislation line by line. I should like to commend my hon. Friends on the diligence with which they have undertaken that operation.
I thank all the organisations throughout the country—citizens advice bureaux, disability groups, the Church Action on Poverty group, trade union groups, unemployment groups, and low-pay groups—that have expressed fear and concern about the measures. Without their help, we could not have scrutinised the Bill and represented people's needs as effectively as we did in Committee. It is sad, however, that, throughout our deliberations, the Government stubbornly refused to change any policy of substance, except to the detriment of the unemployed, especially the young unemployed. They will push the Bill through the House tonight.
At the beginning of Committee stage, I said that Opposition Members would show that the main purpose of the legislation was to cut public expenditure, through the Government's continuing reductions in the social security budget and through reducing the amount of money available to unemployed people. Our deliberations have cruelly exposed that purpose.
The Bill is part of an on-going process that the Government have undertaken, as we all know from the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994. We know that one cannot take £1.5 billion out of the social security budget without inflicting harm and misery on sick and disabled people. That will be the result of that Act.
The Bill, which contains provisions on what is ironically called the jobseeker's allowance, does not create a single job. Instead, it inflicts further hardship on people without a job. Let us remember that the jobseeker's allowance is about undermining the contributory benefit system by cutting benefits from 12 to six months, and about forcing people on to means-tested benefit after a mere six months.
As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) rightly said, that is being done at a time when national insurance contributions have increased from 9 to 10 per cent., resulting in a reported extra £2.2 billion for the Treasury. That is what we have—pay more and get less from the Government. That means more means-testing. It will especially affect people with savings, people who have lost their jobs and have redundancy payments, and people who have lost their jobs and have personal or industrial injury payments. They will be forced to use those benefits six months earlier and to have means-tested benefits. They will be forced into the poverty trap. Those are the consequences of the legislation.
In our deliberations on the Bill, we made much of the plight of the disabled—we make no apology for that. I predict that the chaos and hardship that will arise from incapacity benefit when it is introduced on 13 April, and the interface that that will have with the Bill when it is enacted in 1996, will result in a major scandal. It will be similar to the Child Support Agency, scandal, but it will cause extra misery and hardship for sick and disabled people.
Crucially, we have continually highlighted the fact that the Government expect people to take a job at whatever level of pay the Government believe is right. There is no lower level of pay. The Government are prepared to let people accept pay almost without an hourly rate. That is the real effect of the legislation. That is why we will continue to fight it in Parliament. That is why, after the next election, so many Conservative Members will be seeking jobs, and that is why we will vote against the Bill tonight.

Ms Lynne: The Bill widens inequality in society. It will debar some people from receiving benefit, reduce benefit for others, and do nothing to alleviate the poverty trap. In the worst case scenario, it could cause more homelessness, more poverty and more despair. Why have the Government introduced it? It is to save the Treasury money. I am not against that, but it should not be done at the expense of some of the most vulnerable people in society.
The unemployed are vulnerable. They feel that they are already at the bottom of the heap. They feel degraded and have low self-esteem. What do the Government do about that? They introduce the Jobseekers Bill and, more important, the jobseeker's agreement, supposedly to help people back into work. That builds on the restart scheme and on the humiliation that some people suffer when they go for restart interviews, especially older people who are interviewed by a young interviewer who ends up lecturing them about what they should do.
Now we have the jobseeker's agreement. They can now lecture them about their appearance. I know that most of those interviewers will be good, but human nature dictates that some people will abuse that power. Whatever people have earned in the past, they will be forced to take a job after 13 weeks, no matter what pay is being offered. If they do not do so, they will end up with no money, which means more humiliation or even worse.
Surely the Government cannot want that, or perhaps they do not know what it is like to be unemployed. Perhaps no Conservative Member has ever been unemployed or realised the sense of failure that it causes. All people should be treated with dignity and respect, whatever their circumstances.
We need proper training for the staff who conduct the jobseekers' interviews. I asked on Second Reading and in a written question, how much money will be provided for training? We were told £71 million, but is that for overall training or just for disablement employment advisers? More money needs to be spent on training staff if the jobseeker's agreement is to work at all.
We have already debated the shortcomings of the new arrangements for the 16 to 18-year-olds, but what about the 18 to 25-year-olds? I have never seen any sense in 18 to 25-year-olds on income support getting less than anyone else. How can a married couple, both aged 24 and with children, be expected to live on less than someone aged 25?
Some people in those circumstances will have paid national insurance contributions for eight years, from the ages of 16 to 24. They are entitled to something in return, but the Government are reducing their benefit to £36.15. I do not think that any Conservative or Opposition Member could manage on that sum. Extra hardship will be caused to all those 18 to 25-year-olds, regardless of whether they paid national insurance contributions. If they did pay, they are entitled to something in return.
The Government estimate that 250,000 people will be worse off and 90,000 will not qualify for means-tested benefit under the Bill, but what about the unemployed with savings? Those who have savings of more than £8,000 will receive nothing after six months, and those who have savings of between £3,000 and £8,000 will have their benefit reduced after six months. If someone is unemployed and has a working partner, that person will receive no jobseeker's allowance after six months.
Women will be the hardest hit, because they are more likely to have a partner in work. The cut from 12 to six months' contributory benefit is an absolute disgrace, and should be reversed.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady should vote Labour.

Ms Lynne: No, because the Labour party has refused to say whether it would reverse the cut from 12 to six months.
We debated on Report how disabled people will be disadvantaged. When the 220,000 people have come off incapacity benefit, they will go to the employment exchange or to the Employment Service, which will find it extremely difficult to cope. The Minister did not give a satisfactory reply to my questions yesterday on that subject. Even after our debates, no one is convinced by the Government's arguments.
The Bill is a step in the wrong direction. We need proper back-to-work packages, proper training, proper incentives and, above all, proper jobs. We do not need this draconian measure, which is designed not to help the unemployed but to penalise them, even though the majority are unemployed through no fault of their own.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The objectives of the Bill, which I commend to the House, are to improve the operations of the labour market, to create jobs, to promote enterprise, to introduce a modern, streamlined system for delivering benefits, and to target revenues better.

Mr. McCartney: And to save money.

Mr. Evans: Yes, and to save money. The Opposition have talked about nothing but savage cuts, but the Bill should be considered in context as part of the Government's wider programme of job promotion. [Laughter.] Yes, the savings under the Bill when it is up and running will be £270 million a year, but the Budget package of £700 million-worth of incentives is the other side of the coin.
I shall not weary the House at this hour with details of the gainers under this bundle of measures, which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has clearly—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did the Minister say a "bundle" of measures or a "bungle" of measures?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well.

Mr. Evans: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the back-to-work bonus of 150,000 gainers, the housing benefit run-on which will help people back into work, and the introduction of the child care disregard in family credit, but I end with this point: the national insurance contributions holiday, which will benefit 120,000 people.
The national insurance contributions holiday was the one proposal that members of Labour's Front Bench welcomed. They not only accepted the principle but tabled amendments Nos. 3 and 4 to clause 23 to increase the number of beneficiaries from about120,000 to about

500,000. They had no doubt that that would be the effect of their proposals. They had no need of empirical studies as to the effect of that course on the labour market, but were satisfied by their own theoretical analysis, which happens to be right.
If one lowers the cost to employers of employing labour, there is an incentive to employ more people but the converse of that principle, which inexorably follows in logic, is that, if one increases the cost to employers of employing labour, they can afford to employ fewer people.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there is an extremely important distinction to be made between reducing the overhead costs of employing labour and cutting pay?

Mr. Evans: For the purposes of work incentives, there is no distinction whatsoever—it comes out of the bottom line. If one has the same amount to spend on one's work force and is made to give them more of it, one can afford to employ fewer people.
There is therefore a bizarre contradiction at the heart of Labour's objections to the Bill. The Labour party supports the national insurance contributions holiday but, at the same time, promotes the minimum wage. We heard that the minimum wage is, in effect, going to be the minimum prescribed sum for which anyone is allowed to work. We shall see the abolition of family credit, in effect, but Labour will not tell us what the minimum wage will be.
Labour's critique of this part of the Bill, rather like its critique of the whole Bill, has been nothing but empty rhetoric and deception, a morally and intellectually bankrupt analysis with no coherence. Let us be clear that the Labour party's approach will simply create more unemployment.
I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 269, Noes 239.

Division No. 114]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Browning, Mrs Angela


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Budgen, Nicholas


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butler, Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Carttiss, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cash, William


Batiste, Spencer
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bellingham, Henry
Churchill, Mr


Bendall, Vivian
Clappison, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Booth, Hartley
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Boswell, Tim
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Coe, Sebastian


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Congdon, David


Bowis, John
Conway, Derek


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Brandreth, Gyles
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Brazier, Julian
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Bright, Sir Graham
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Couchman, James






Cran, James
Jessel, Toby


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jopling, Rt Ron Michael


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Legg, Barry


Elletson, Harold
Leigh, Edward


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lidington, David


Evennett, David
Lightbown, David


Faber, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luff, Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, Dudley
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, Sir David


French, Douglas
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fry, Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Gale, Roger
Mans, Keith


Gallie, Phil
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mates, Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Merchant, Piers


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hannam, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Harris, David
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard


Hayes, Jerry
Paice, James


Heald, Oliver
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hendry, Charles
Pawsey, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pickles, Eric


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Horam, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Robathan, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jenkin, Bernard
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)





Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Thomason, Roy


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sackville, Tom
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Waterson, Nigel


Soames, Nicholas
Watts, John


Spencer, Sir Derek
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Whitney, Ray


Spink, Dr Robert
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sproat, Iain
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Willetts, David



Wilshire, David


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stewart, Allan
Wolfson, Mark


Streeter, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Sweeney, Walter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tapsell, Sir Peter



Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. Michael Bates and


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Church, Judith


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clapham, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Alton, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ann


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Austin-Walker, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corston, Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Dafis, Cynog


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davidson, Ian


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blunkett, David
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Boateng, Paul
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith
Dixon, Don


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dowd, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Burden, Richard
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Ms Angela


Caborn, Richard
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim
Enright, Derek


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, D N
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Flynn, Paul


Chidgey, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foulkes, George






Fraser, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Fyfe, Maria
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Galbraith, Sam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Galloway, George
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Gapes, Mike
Jowell, Tessa


Garrett, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


George, Bruce
Keen, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Khabra, Piara S


Godsiff, Roger
Kilfoyle, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lewis, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Litherland, Robert


Graham, Thomas
Livingstone, Ken


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Loyden, Eddie


Grocott, Bruce
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gunnell, John
McAllion, John


Hall, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Hanson, David
McCartney, Ian


Harman, Ms Harriet
Macdonald, Calum


Harvey, Nick
McFall, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McKelvey, William


Henderson, Doug
Mackinlay, Andrew


Heppell, John
McMaster, Gordon


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
McNamara, Kevin


Hinchliffe, David
Madden, Max


Hoey, Kate
Maddock, Diana


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Mandelson, Peter


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Martlew, Eric


Howarth, George (Knowsley North)
Maxton, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Meacher, Michael


Hoyle, Doug
Meale, Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Michael, Alun


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Milburn, Alan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Miller, Andrew


Hutton, John
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Ingram, Adam
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Morgan, Rhodri


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Morley, Elliot


Jamieson, David
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)





Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Short, Clare


Mowlam, Marjorie
Simpson, Alan


Mudie, George
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Soley, Clive


O'Hara, Edward
Spearing, Nigel


Olner, Bill
Spellar, John


O'Neill, Martin
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Patchett, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Stevenson, George


Pickthall, Colin
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pope, Greg
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Primarolo, Dawn
Tipping, Paddy


Purchase, Ken
Touhig, Don


Quin, Ms Joyce
Turner, Dennis


Radice, Giles
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Vaz, Keith


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Raynsford, Nick
Watson, Mike


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Andrew


Reid, Dr John
Wicks, Malcolm


Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wise, Audrey


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Worthington, Tony


Rooker, Jeff
Wray, Jimmy


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ruddock, Joan



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Sheerman, Barry
Mr. Eric Clarke and


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Joe Benton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Civil Service

[Relevant documents: The Fifth Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee of Session 1993–94, on the Role of the Civil Service (House of Commons Paper No. 27), and The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change (Cm 2748), containing the Government's observations thereon.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt):: The British Civil Service is a great national asset. Since the 1870s, it has been the permanent and impartial instrument of all administrations. Governments have always seen it as their duty to preserve its efficiency and honesty for their successors.
Those are not only my views; those are the words of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service in November's report. That report demonstrated the strength of the consensus between the Government and the Select Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and their colleagues on having produced such a valuable report.
The civil service plays a vital part in underpinning the constitution and in sustaining good government in this country. It always has, and it always will. The important challenge facing us all is to retain and strengthen the traditional principles that have made the Westminster model the envy of the world—independence, impartiality, integrity, objectivity, and permanence—while at the same time making the changes necessary to bring our system into the 21st century.
That will require a combination of continuity and change. That is why, eight months ago, my predecessor published the White Paper, "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", which was the first Government document since the Fulton report, more than 25 years ago, to address the role and future of the civil service as a whole. It built on ideas stretching back to the great Victorian reformers, Northcote and Trevelyan. The emphasis on accountable management and on developing the professional skills of civil servants can be found in Fulton, and has been carried forward strongly through the initiatives of the Government since 1979.
Those twin themes—continuity and change—reflect the need for continuity in the long-standing traditions of the civil service, and also the need for the service, like other large organisations, to change in order to improve performance. In the White Paper, the Government strongly reaffirmed their commitment to the established values of the service, which include—as well as integrity and political impartiality—recruitment through fair and open competition, selection and promotion on merit, and accountability through Ministers to Parliament.
The Treasury and Civil Service Committee said of those values:
They are as important today as in the last century; their importance should not diminish in the next … These values reflect rather than inhibit the jobs to be done. They are relevant to civil servants serving the public as well as to those serving Ministers directly. They can and should act as a unifying force for the whole Civil Service.
The Government's further Command Paper, published in January this year, "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", accepted most of the Treasury and Civil Service

Committee's conclusions and recommendations, in particular the Committee's proposals for a new civil service code and for a new independent avenue of appeal to the civil service commissioners.
With Her Majesty's approval, the appointment of Michael Bett as the new First Civil Service Commissioner was announced last week, following open competition. I had my first formal meeting with him earlier today, and he will oversee the enhanced responsibilities of the commissioners for interpreting the principles of fair and open competition for all civil service recruitment.
The commissioners will publish a recruitment code for Departments and agencies, and will audit their performance against it, and will approve all appointments from outside to the senior civil service. The First Civil Service Commissioner will attend the senior appointments selection committee, which is chaired by the head of the home civil service. He will be able to comment on senior selection processes in the commissioners' annual report.
The Government are now consulting civil servants and the civil service unions on the code. We shall also take into account any further comments from the Select Committee, and we will of course listen carefully to all contributions made in the debate.
Legislation is not necessary to introduce the code or the new functions of the civil service commissioners. Action under the prerogative can include implementation of the code once consultation is complete, and the new role of the commissioners can be created through a revised Order in Council. But any such action would be without prejudice to the possibility of legislation thereafter. I make it absolutely clear that the Government have an open mind about legislation. We set out our views in "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", but it may be worth amplifying them for the benefit of the House.
Legislation, as the Select Committee itself acknowledged, would need to be narrowly based. It would cover the powers of the civil service commissioners concerning selection for appointment to the home civil service and the diplomatic service, their powers to investigate complaints arising from the civil service code, and their power to report to Parliament on the number, nature, and outcome of complaints put to them.
Such legislation would also cover the powers of the Minister responsible for the civil service, in respect of terms and conditions in the home civil service—and, of course, the corresponding powers of the Foreign Secretary—and would introduce a new power for the Minister to issue the civil service code. If the code had already been issued the legislation would confirm it. Legislation would also include a power to make orders to amend it, which would be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
I am, however, very cautious about opening up the possibility of change in the constitutional position of the civil service. The Government would consider the introduction of a Bill only if we were satisfied that the proposed legislation would sustain the existing constitutional position, retain the flexibility of existing arrangements for regulating the terms and conditions of civil servants, and preserve the current position of civil servants under general employment law.
I would also want to be satisfied that such legislation would be supported in all parts of the House. As the hon. Member for Durham, North will know, I have already


invited Opposition parties to take part in discussions, and I hope that in the debate we shall be able to explore some of the important issues that lie before us.
The values of the civil service are vital, not only in a constitutional sense but to ensure that all our citizens are treated equitably under the law. The integrity and objectivity of the service help to ensure that the right decisions are taken, and that those decisions are implemented honestly and without wasting taxpayers' money. Selection and promotion on merit are crucial principles in support of any effective organisation. The values of the civil service go hand in hand with effectiveness and efficiency.
It is the Government's duty to obtain the best possible value for every penny of public money handled through the civil service. That means sustaining the traditional values but also adopting new best-practice techniques to help to increase the quality of service to the citizen, and the efficiency of that service.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend at this early stage in his speech, but he has already said how important it would be to ensure that any legislation did not change the constitutional position of the civil service. He then described the characteristics and merits of our civil service, which are indeed terrific. May I ask him, for the benefit of the House, how he defines the constitutional position of the civil service? Even after taking part in the preparation of the Select Committee report, I am still slightly unclear about that. What is the Government's view?

Mr. Hunt: I had hoped that, for the benefit of my hon. Friend and others, I had set that out in the earlier part of my speech. The constitutional position of the civil service rests on the traditional principles of independence—that is fundamental—impartiality, integrity and honesty, selection and promotion on merit, and permanence. The constitutional position is reflected in those key principles. I said that I welcomed what the Select Committee had said, so clearly I share the view that it is vital that the traditional principles be preserved.
A possible change to the constitutional position comes whenever legislation is proposed in this House, because it is open to hon. Members on both sides of the House to propose amendments. One can envisage a situation in which some of those amendments might have a fundamental effect on the constitutional position that I have set out.
That is my concern, but some of those fears may be put to rest during our discussions with Opposition parties. Widespread consultation can provide one with a feel for the way in which the House, the civil servants and the unions wish to proceed. One can make a judgment about whether any legislation would affect the constitutional position.

Mr. Peter Mandelson: Would not the values, traditions, independence and integrity of the civil service have been more effectively upheld if the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner had gone to somebody from the civil service who was steeped in the service's traditions and ethos, rather than to somebody from the private sector, whose qualifications seem to be a string of public and quango appointments in the gift of the Government, together with his long-standing support for the Conservative party?

Mr. Hunt: I reject the hon. Gentleman's description and analysis of the new First Civil Service Commissioner, and I have confidence that Michael Bett will uphold the traditional principles of the civil service. He has demonstrated that in the range of duties and responsibilities which he has carried out, and I am aware of the extensive public service work which forms part of his curriculum vitae. I sure that he will uphold the traditional values which I have just outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).
Paragraph 1 of the proposed new civil service code states:
The constitutional and practical role of the Civil Service is, with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity, to assist the duly constituted Government, of whatever political complexion, in formulating policies of the Government, carrying out decisions of the Government and administering services for which the Government is responsible".
That provides the remainder of the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will reflect on the comments he has made, because it has been my experience that Mr. Bett is respected by Members on both sides of the House for his impartiality.
The Government want to see sustained improvement in the administration of the civil service, and intend to achieve that by building on the approaches pioneered in the next steps initiative which we launched in 1988, and the citizens charter and "Competing for Quality" White Papers, published three years later. That means systems appropriate to the end of the 20th century, better management information, resource accounting, delegation to the right level, clear objectives, annual targets, the management of performance, a focus on quality and service to the customer.
From April 1996, individual Departments will have responsibility for implementing their own systems of pay and grading for their staff, and those systems will be suited to their particular needs. Beginning this April, Departments will have responsibility for drawing up their own three-year efficiency plans, which will incorporate a wide range of efficiency measures.
The efficiency plans will build on the "competing for quality" programme, which has realised savings averaging 20 per cent.—over £400 million a year—with no reduction in the quality of service, and indeed with improved service in one third of cases. Competition and new opportunities for the private sector have provided a real spur to increased efficiency right across the civil service.
The focus on quality and service to the customer are at the heart of the citizens charter. The charter aims to raise standards of service and increase the responsiveness of Government. The recent changes in the structure of the civil service are tailor-made to meet those objectives. The creation of agencies under the "next steps" initiative has devolved responsibility for the executive service functions of Government, from remote offices in Whitehall to those who deal face to face with the general public on a daily basis.
That is where the public need high-quality service, and that is where the new structure of the civil service enables it to be provided. All agencies which directly serve the public already have, or are developing, charter standard


statements, so that people know what service they have a right to expect from Government, and what they can do about it if that service is not delivered.
It may not sound revolutionary that one can now take one's driving test on a Saturday morning and pay for it by credit card, but ordinary people asked for the change and are benefiting from it. The introduction of a tax helpline may not seem very significant until it is used to solve a problem, and all for the cost of a local telephone call, no matter where one is in the country. The one-stop service being introduced by the Benefits Agency will not mean much to those who have never visited a benefits office, but the people who count—the customers and claimants—will see a real improvement.
There are now 102 agencies in the civil service, including the revenue departments, which run on next steps lines. Some 62 per cent. of civil servants—more than 350,000 staff—work in "next steps" organisations.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will at some stage take the opportunity to deal with the issue of impartiality in more detail. As a member of the Select Committee dealing with that issue, I am aware that we brought Sir Robin Butler back to give further evidence.
The House will be aware that Conservative members of the Committee asked Sir Robin about a number of matters: first, the way in which 80 to 100 amendments were given by civil servants to various Back-Bench Members to wreck a Bill; secondly, the way in which Sir Robin Butler was involved in various investigations—Members on both sides of the Select Committee questioned whether he should have been involved in those; and, thirdly, the involvement of civil servants in what appears on the face of it to be a Cabinet Committee with a political, rather than governmental, objective.

Mr. Hunt: I intended to come to that matter later in my speech. I am in some difficulty, because I understand that the Select Committee is still considering the matter, and at some stage it will produce a report. The Select Committee is at liberty to call for any evidence that it wishes to consider, and I am not too sure whether I should start evolving a response to some of the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I can say that I regard the traditional principle of impartiality to be fundamental to the future of the civil service, and it is a part of the duty of all Governments to ensure that that traditional principle is upheld. I shall return to one or two of the specific points which the hon. Gentleman made a little later, but I hope that my answer will reassure him.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: indicated dissent.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I follow the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) has made? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no civil servant will be employed in any form of political work associated with the new Cabinet Committee appointed to look for banana skins in the run-up to the next election?

Mr. Hunt: I was going to come to that in a moment, but of course I can assure the hon. Gentleman that civil

servants are well aware of the need to retain their independence and political impartiality. However, civil servants have been dealing with the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy for as long as I can remember.
To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) about the First Civil Service Commissioner and whether he should have been a civil servant, it is worth noting that the Select Committee favoured civil service commissioners who were not serving civil servants, and that the commissioners should be appointed from a wide range of backgrounds. I hope and believe that we have responded to the tenor of the Select Committee's recommendations.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) about the new Cabinet Committee, when I was appointed to my present position, the Prime Minister asked me to take special responsibility for the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy. I was also made chairman of seven Cabinet Committees, and I sit on nine other Cabinet Committees. I have been discussing with the Prime Minister what further steps might appropriately be taken to improve co-ordination and presentation, and I concluded that it would help to set up a new Cabinet Committee with a specific remit to undertake that work. The Prime Minister accepted my advice, and asked me to chair it.
The new Committee will provide a forum in which the relevant issues, right across government, can be addressed. It is a Committee of Ministers charged with co-ordinating and presenting the policies of the elected Government of the day and is serviced by civil servants. As part of the present Government's open government policy, the membership and terms of reference of ministerial Committees of the Cabinet are now published and updated regularly, so when a new Committee is established, unlike in previous Administrations, the Prime Minister now naturally informs Parliament, and that is what has happened in this case.

Mr. Mandelson: Will the Chancellor confirm that the membership of that Committee includes the chairman of the Conservative party? Is it a proper function of civil servants to spend their time cleaning up after him?

Mr. Hunt: Without being drawn into the nonsense in the hon. Gentleman's question, may I explain that the Cabinet Minister without portfolio sits on the Committee in his role as a Minister? He is a member of eight other Cabinet Committees.
This Committee consists of myself, in my capacity as Minister responsible for the co-ordination of Government's policy as a whole; the Lord President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal, who are leaders of their respective Houses of Parliament with responsibilities for handling the Government's parliamentary business, which are highly relevant to the new Committee's work; and the Minister without portfolio, who has a specific role in which he works closely with me to help co-ordinate and formulate Government policy and its delivery. Nothing could be simpler.
Under this Government, for the first time ever, those facts are made public and, as soon as we have a Cabinet Committee, the public are informed of its membership and terms of reference. This is the most open Government in the history of this country, because, for the first time, a


range of information that used to be behind the scenes, particularly under previous Labour Governments, is all now made public and open.
The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee pronounced a verdict on "next steps" which is worth quoting. It described "next steps" as
the single most successful Civil Service reform programme of recent decades",
and added:
We believe that Next Steps agencies represent a significant improvement in the organisation of Government and that any future Government will want to maintain them".

Mr. Giles Radice: I entirely agree that we said that—it has certainly been my position—but we also said that "next steps" should not be seen as a staging post to privatisation. Will the Minister confirm that he accepts our proposals on that?

Mr. Hunt: I have already made the Government's position clear in our published response to the Committee's report. The foundation of the Government's position is to ask, first, whether the job in question should be done by the Government at all. If not, privatisation is an option that clearly presents itself. What I am now talking about is when the Government decide that the job in question should be done by the Government but that it would be most appropriate and effective for it to be done by a "next steps" agency.
Just recently, in the first open competition for a Permanent Secretary post in a Department of state, the job of leading the Department of Employment went to an agency chief executive—moreover, one who had been appointed to that agency post from outside the civil service following an earlier open competition. In many ways, that symbolises the coming of age of the "next steps" initiative.
The setting-up of "next steps" agencies is, in itself, a valuable process. In progressing the initiative, there has been a thorough examination of every executive function in the Government. The "prior options" test, looking at the case for abolition, privatisation, strategic contracting out, and market testing, ensures that the Government undertake tasks that properly belong to them.
As I have just explained to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), having determined the answer to that question, the next stage is to ensure that the Government perform those tasks to the best of their ability in organisations with the right structures, skills, and attitudes.
The Government must stick to their core tasks, deliver them to a high standard, and carry them out within tight running cost controls. The plans announced in last November's Budget mean that total cash spending in Departments will be held at the same level in 1997–98 as in 1993–94, which implies a 10 per cent. cut in real terms. That is clear and unambiguous proof of the Government's commitment to continuing improvements in efficiency.
These are, without question, challenging times for the civil service, but the civil service is responding. The changes that we have brought about are designed to make it responsive and flexible. That is the sort of civil service that we shall need for the next century.
I believe that civil servants retain the public service ethos that is their fundamental strength. The taxpayer pays their salary and civil servants want the taxpayer to get

value for money. Civil servants want more responsibility. They want to provide the best possible service to the customer; to be efficient; and to be paid according to how well they perform, not how long they have been in a job.
The whole principle of continuity and change have produced a civil service reform that is an outstanding British success story, which will help equip the United Kingdom for the challenges of the 21st century. The Government have built on the enduring values and firm foundations of the civil service, creating more flexible and efficient structures in which staff can work to the best of their ability and provide a high-quality service to the people of the nation.
Stewardship of the civil service is a vital task. I submit to the House that, judged against any standard, the Government have carried out that task responsibly, effectively, and well.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the consultations with the Leader of the Opposition on the appointment of the First Civil Service Commissioner. I hope that the practice will continue and be extended to all senior appointments to the civil service and heads of significant agencies. After all, it will be standard practice for such appointments after 1 January 1996, as we approach the general election, on the basis of precedent.
Secondly, we support the establishment of the MBA course for civil servants—an important step forward—which is to be developed at the Imperial College school of management in London. Although that is a welcome step, the question of establishing the British equivalent of the Ecole Nationale d'Administration will continue and still has many arguments in its favour.
Thirdly, we welcome the tone of the letter that the Chancellor recently sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) about procedures to be followed on the code of practice for the civil service. Subject to the usual caveats, we shall do all that we can to help to achieve an agreed legislative framework for the proposed code for the civil service and ensure that it is in the legislative programme for the next Session. The Chancellor said in his letter to my hon. Friend:
I shall of course let you know in due course of the outcome of consultation within the Civil Service, and would fully understand if you did not want to give a final reaction to proposals for legislation until those consultations have been completed.
That would be precisely our position. It would not prevent us from chatting in the meantime.
There is still a need to grapple with two problems: the relationship of civil servants to Parliament and the House especially, and the problems of the public interest. I hope that those problems can be resolved. The Nolan inquiry and, more especially, the Scott inquiry will doubtless provide some helpful guidance on those matters, but they should not be allowed to prevent the introduction of the legislative framework.
I must add the congratulations of the Labour party to the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee, its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), and his colleagues, who, by the strength of their arguments, persuaded the Government of the value not only of a civil service code, but of a statutory one.
We now need to turn our attention to how best to secure the values that the Treasury and Civil Service Committee rightly identified as the unifying features of the British civil service—impartiality, integrity, objectivity, selection and promotion on merit and accountability.
In the past 15 years, the British civil service has undergone a period of radical change. Collectively, market testing, agency creation and privatisation have led to the fragmentation of the public service ethos. Although we are pleased with the Government's change of mind on the civil service code, we believe that they must now also recognise the way in which the civil service is being splintered and its essential values dissipated.
No one denies the integrity of civil servants, but what chance do our civil servants have to show their integrity when morale is so low? I do not see the picture of the civil service and its members as painted by the Chancellor today.
Despite the fact that the Government rejected the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee's request for a civil service staff attitude survey, the Treasury nevertheless conducted its own survey in 1994. Sixty-nine per cent. of Treasury staff said that morale was poor, and only 16 per cent. felt that the Department was well managed.
Such is the contempt of the Treasury for its employees that during the recent downsizing—what a charming euphemism for sacking—of the deputy secretary grade in the Treasury, an official was reported in the Daily Mail as saying patronisingly:
It is unlikely they are going to the best-paid jobs in the City—if they were that good we wouldn't have let them go"—
and the Government wonder why morale is so low in the Treasury, when it denigrates its own employees whose responsible jobs were to supervise the spending in other Departments.
That statement was made shortly after the reported massive overspend and confusion in the Ministry of Defence, in relation to its defence contracts and the handling of its properties. Now there is no one in the Treasury who will supervise the MOD in the handling of such affairs.

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman should consider his facts more closely. I think that he will find, if he does, that the considerable manpower reductions that are proposed in the Treasury, following Sir Terry Burns' recent report, are almost all to be achieved on the basis of natural wastage, hence with the co-operation of the people concerned.

Mr. McNamara: That was not the impression that I received when speaking to some of the people involved and their representatives. It may be achieved voluntarily in the long run, but there are different ways of achieving voluntary redundancies, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows. I do not think that the civil service is any different from any other employer in achieving voluntary redundancies.
Morale is low not only in Whitehall, nor are all civil servants to be found there. Each day, for the thousands of civil servants who work outside Whitehall, the outlook has rarely been bleaker. Pity the poor civil servants who, in employment offices throughout the country, will have

to change their whole mode of meeting and talking to the public as they seek to enforce the results of today's mass vote on the Jobseekers Bill.
The increase in casualisation, the decline of promotion and career prospects, the minimal pay increases that civil servants have been receiving and the fervour with which Ministers have introduced large-scale market testing and plans for privatisation—some of them without even undertaking market testing—have left the great majority of civil servants feeling very insecure and worried about their future.
The Chancellor's blanket decision in the most recent Budget to cut numbers in the civil service by 10 per cent. regardless of the role, size or responsibility of tasks, shows the cavalier attitude that the Government display to the civil service as a whole and to individuals in particular. That 10 per cent. cut is a 10 per cent. cut in jobs because that is the most expensive element in the civil service.
Such arrogance has also recently been displayed in the Department of Employment, where the Secretary of State enjoined his Department not to employ temporarily anyone for more than 51 weeks, lest they gain employment rights. By acts such as that, the Government have thrown a blanket of fear across the whole of the civil service, but they are also setting a shocking example to private employers.
The current Conservative period in office began with the Government abolishing the fair wages resolution of the House, continued by abolishing wages councils and ends with the current Secretary of State for Employment setting standards from his own Department for the worst employers—a great change from the Churchillian tradition that used to emanate at one time from the Department of Employment and the way in which the Government then regarded their servants.
In order to cope with that Government-instilled fear, civil servants are forced to sacrifice objectivity. The Government's White Paper, "Taking Forward Continuity and Change", outlines the introduction of individual contracts for senior civil servants at grade 5 and above. In such a job environment, where the proposed employer is the appropriate Secretary of State, how objective can employees be with their policy advice, especially if they know that every word that they say could be used against them in future contract renewal negotiations?
To avoid the risks of politicisation of the senior civil service, such contracts should at least be regulated by an independent or quasi-independent organisation. We are aware of the role that the Secretary of State envisages for the First Civil Service Commissioner. We await the outcome.
Further, there continues to be no explanation from the Government of the way in which they intend to resolve the constitutional dilemma of having a contract for civil servants with terms set out, including notice periods in the event of redundancy and dismissal, yet at the same time the Department retaining the royal prerogative whereby the Crown can dismiss at will.
Not only will senior civil servants have their own special pay arrangements, but, as the Chancellor said, so will all civil servants in every Department by 1 April 1995. Such pay delegation leads to more division of the civil service. National pay bargaining has served the civil service extremely well, underpinning the concept and practice of a


national unified civil service. Each year, approximately 40 officials in the Treasury effectively manage the national pay bargaining process of 500,000 people.
Ministers now mistakenly believe that by pay delegation they can offer greater scope for savings on running costs by keeping salaries as small as possible. In reality, after all the gloss has gone, the Treasury will retain financial control of the civil service pay bill. Why the stupid delegation? That delegation will serve to provide little more than a thin veneer of superficial control of the parts of the civil service with pay delegation.
Last year, the pay deals in delegated parts of the civil service were remarkably similar to the national pay agreement of 2.2 per cent., yet the cost of those parallel deals is evidenced by the fact that more than 3,000 people have taken courses at Sunningdale to learn bargaining procedures in the new Departments and agencies, and as many as 200 pay bodies will be needed to administer the various departmental and agency pay systems—3,000 people, when 40 did it in the past. There were four main negotiated settlements, but now we shall have 200. The Government call that less bureaucratic and more efficient. It is rubbish; and that from a Government who extol the virtues of efficiency.
The Government's means of efficiency—market testing, contracting out and privatisation—have eroded the civil service values of selection and promotion based on merit. Successful agencies, such as the Chessington Computer Centre and the Insolvency Service Agency, which, respectively, administer the Government payroll and investigate the affairs of bankrupts, and meet their yearly targets and beat off all private sector competition, are to be rewarded with privatisation. Since its creation in 1993, Chessington has outperformed all its private sector competitors. A high-quality service such as Chessington should be valued by, and retained in, the public sector, not primed for privatisation in order to fund tax cuts before the next election. The irony is that Chessington will possibly be sold to one of the private companies that it has regularly beaten in competition.
We believe in rewarding the agencies' hard work not by privatising them, but by keeping them in the public sector, serving the public good and setting an example to the private sector of the smooth and efficient delivery of service to the public. But the pace of reform is causing the fifth essential feature of the civil service—accountability—to be left behind. If one allows agencies such as Chessington and the insolvency service to leave the Government via privatisation, the existing accountability arrangements no longer suffice. The Government do not seem to have taken that on board or to have introduced appropriate procedures for it yet.
In the case of the Prison Service, accountability for mistakes saw the buck pass from the Home Secretary to the head of the Prison Service to the prison officers and, then, to the IRA for daring to try to escape. That is a dangerous precedent, and it happens not only in the Prison Service. What a shambles the Child Support Agency was, but the Minister with responsibility again came up smelling like roses, just like the Home Secretary. They are escaping scot free from what should be their proper responsibility.
We are further worried about the Government's intention to implement a trial contracting out of the drafting of Treasury legislation to private sector lawyers, as announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Significantly, he made the announcement to the European Forum rather than the civil service or the House. The European Forum has been touting on behalf of some private sector lawyers for the work for some years. Private industry will draft some of the most politically controversial and market and price-sensitive legislation. One can only conclude that the Chancellor came up with that idea when suffering from mental and physical exhaustion after his efforts to create a new steel industry in Consett and build new nappy factories.
There are serious conflicts of interest in lawyers' chambers and solicitors' firms to be resolved. Private law firms will almost certainly use the trial period as a loss leader. Civil service lawyers are highly qualified and highly intelligent, but are paid only between one third and one half of what lawyers in the City can expect. Any widespread contracting out of the drafting of legislation will lead to a significant exodus of senior civil service lawyers to more lucrative opportunities in the private sector. The expertise of the most experienced and able draftsmen will be lost, not only to this Government but, more significantly, to any incoming Administration. There is a growing fear that, despite the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's fine words, the Government's policies towards the civil service will make it increasingly difficult for an incoming Labour Government, elected on a popular mandate, to have the resources to legislate, implement and administer policy effectively.
The five unifying features of the civil service are threatened by the incessant drive for dogmatic change. I conclude by stressing a sixth feature: flexibility, which was also mentioned by the Chancellor. Flexibility is not a value, but a necessary quality of any organisation at the end of this millennium—especially in the increasingly vital sphere of information technology, its control and its use.
Information systems are, or should be, central to the operations of Government, Departments and agencies. Under market testing, those information systems are being sold to private sector companies. The information technology operations of the Inland Revenue and the Department of Transport have been sold to the same company, Electronic Data Systems. The Inland Revenue contract is worth £1 billion over 10 years. Electronic Data Systems offered the lowest tender, thereby winning a valuable prize—the Inland Revenue computer systems were admired throughout the Government and by many foreign Governments.
Now, the National Audit Office has identified 43 risk factors in the Inland Revenue contract. If EDS were to fail, it is estimated that to reconstitute the in-house organisation could take up to five years and cost the British taxpayer millions of pounds. EDS is excluded from liability for consequential loss arising from a breakdown in computer service. That means that the Inland Revenue cannot recover from EDS lost tax revenue or interest payments that it may be required to make on delayed tax refunds. What sort of contract is it when someone cannot receive damages when his partner fails to deliver the service that he said he would? That policy comes from a Government of business men.
The Inland Revenue runs the risk of losing control of its information systems. It will be virtually impossible for the small contract management team that remains to keep abreast of the constantly changing world of information technology or to have the knowledge to utilise it. The


ability to change policy now depends on technological infrastructures. We have already seen that with the concern expressed by some members of the Inland Revenue about the structure of the EDS contract. The Government will rely on EDS to tell them what it is prepared to provide, and it will not necessarily answer to Government needs. The Inland Revenue's current plans to computerise tax returns depend upon EDS's design and supply of the relevant equipment by 1997. EDS is currently deciding whether it can meet that deadline successfully, under the terms of the contract. The Inland Revenue must wait, twiddling its thumbs, for the decision.
Now, on top of all that, the Government are considering whether to make another contract with EDS to control the computerised identity database that will cover the entire population and could be tied to a national identity card scheme. The question immediately arises whether the Government should place so much trust in one company that claims in its battle honours the botched Student Loans Company's computer systems contract. Control of that company will not be in this country or even in the European Union, but in the United States of America. The company will be subject to American legislation.
If there were to be a breakdown in the contract or a failure to renew, the Inland Revenue would be at the mercy of EDS and any other private companies that may have some of the knowledge. None of the control will be in this country. The Government have surrendered their responsibility abroad. What does that mean? Government by contract can lead to loss of flexibility and of the ability of the civil service to react to immediate events.
The Opposition would not argue that all Departments and agencies should be building their own information systems. But when we look to private sector expertise, we must recognise the difficulties in separating completely one from the other, policy formation, information technology, policy delivery and policy supervision. Government agencies must retain control of the strategic elements of their information technology and the technological know-how to be intelligent customers. The Government are running down that ability within the civil service until eventually it will be lost.
Privatisations such as those in the Inland Revenue and the Department of Transport are being carried out by the Government in the name of private sector practice. Yet few private sector companies would enter into contracts of that scale and lose their core abilities. Contracting out should be a management tool that enhances flexibility. But under market testing it has been used as an institutional dogma that engenders rigidity in what future Governments will be able to do. It is not the reforms themselves—"next steps", market testing and pay reform—that are endangering the essential qualities of the civil service, although one can raise all sorts of questions about them. It is the particular way in which they are being carried out.
Decentralisation is being implemented in a centralised manner at a pace that is leaving vital features behind and causing the Government to lose control. We must understand the effect that pay reform and job insecurity are having on civil service morale in order that impartiality, objectivity and integrity may be restored. We

must select and promote on merit rather than on the principle that private is synonymous with good and public is synonymous with bad.
We need a revised framework of accountability for a reformed civil service that is not so dependent on the illusory distinction between policy and administration. The Cabinet Secretary tried to create that distinction and the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Security sought to take advantage of it. We must establish a creative balance between public and private provision, resisting the temptations of cut-price options with hidden long-term implications and recognising that government by contract can lead to increased risk and loss of flexibility. We do not want 20,000 civil servants in Westminster writing contracts that are dictated by the would-be service providers.
We must pull back from the brink of hollow government and restore the civil service as a national asset. The Chancellor's remarks about the civil service being a national asset were laughable when, by their policies, the Government are demonstrating that they are the biggest asset stripper in the land.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is quite like old times for me to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), although on this occasion I am not following him in wearing a tie colour coded in orange and green. As we have disagreed before, I am sure that he will not mind my doing so again on the subject of pay delegation.
As, among other things, Customs and Excise Minister, I would spend one day in six weeks in the field. I had the opportunity to talk with civil servants during the day and it was my experience that, south of Watford, they wished to discuss only pay but, north of Watford, they did not raise the subject at all.
I am taking part in the debate primarily to deliver a personal paean of praise and a vote of thanks. Although the late Nick Ridley of enchanting memory used to say that the most confidential place to say something was the Floor of the House of Commons, I am delighted to offer both paean and appreciation in so public a forum.
I served in five Government Departments over 15 years, if one includes the Whips Office, and I pay the utmost praise to the service that I received from civil servants in each and every one of those Departments. Those men and women were knowledgeable, diligent, agreeable, honourable and wholly devoted to the public weal. It was a pleasure to be a visiting player in their team. Many of them are employed in my constituency and, as a master of business administration, I welcome others to that state.
The most vivid index of their collective quality is the compliment paid by the last Secretary General of the European Commission, who was French. We are so often told, in Sterne's phrase, that they order these things better in France, so it is a delight to record the verdict of that long-serving French fonctionnaire: that, of all the civil service machines in the Union that interfaced with Brussels, the British was the best. It took a cross-Whitehall trawl on policy issues before a debate took place in Brussels in order to determine what was best for Her Majesty's Government as a whole. In many other capitals it was simply left to the lead Department to decide on a policy.
The proof of that pudding is the speed with which we implement EU directives and the infrequency with which we are taken to the European Court. In other capitals, the debate often begins only after the Council of Ministers has made up its mind.
Lest I should be thought purblind in a Panglossian manner, I remark in passing—as evidence that parts of the state of Denmark still require improvement—that, while I acknowledge that the instance occurred a decade ago, the worst spelling, punctuation and grammar of my experience occurred ironically in what was then the Department of Education and Science. The spirits of Chaucer and Rabbie Burns can rest easy in the knowledge that the most consistent good examples of those literary disciplines occurred in their old Department of Customs and Excise. In this case, I am perhaps being a little unfair to the Northern Ireland civil service; but my readings therein were diluted by the Northern Ireland Office. Perhaps Trollope can rest easy also.
My slender credentials for the debate include an unlikely one. The fact that my great granduncle served in this House with Stafford Northcote is less germane than the fact that my father shared rooms at Oxford with John Fulton of the Fulton report, at whose knee I therefore partly grew up. However, I served for four years in the late 1980s as Treasury Minister responsible for civil service pay and conditions and I was likewise responsible for some of the wider efficiency initiatives in the public service.
Without washing red tape in public, I admit that some of those initiatives were perhaps a little overdue. In one purchasing episode—where it had been assumed for years that costs rose with the inflationary tide—I salute the official who went to see for himself and inferred from the ubiquity of BMWs in the suppliers' car park that perhaps in that area of industrial activity the technology was moving in a deflationary direction.
The fact that the reforms have been spread over more than a decade has softened the process of change. Commercial bankers, like civil servants, had grown up in careers where it was assumed that there was a berth for life, with all the attendant industrial relations implications for pay and conditions. The implicit breaking of that contract, which occurred a decade earlier for bankers than for civil servants, came as a shock.
I can still recall the jejune embarrassment of the first essays in pay flexibility. But Departments learnt quickly, as they could soon be on the receiving end of another Department's unthinking ineptitude—I refer to the events of 10 years ago. With regard to civil service pay policy, I always found it easier to identify statistics for attraction and retention rather than for motivation.
Where change does not occur—as is recognised in paragraph 85 of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report and in paragraph 6 of the Government's response—is in the civil service's commitment to Governments of different hues. The late Dick Crossman used to inveigh against the capacity of civil servants to thwart his plans or to seek to do so. There have been echoes of him in the past 15 years and no doubt they will continue into the next century.
Like the perennial complaint by Governments of all colours that the BBC is biased against them, even-handed scepticism across all parties must be evidence that all is reasonably well in this area of our constitution. Leaving aside the ingrained British habit of always thinking of

reasons for not doing something and leaving aside the great Sam Rayburn's memorable remark that the three wisest words in the English language are "wait a minute", it is the duty of civil servants to draw attention to all the disadvantages of a ministerial policy and to avoid those two terrible embarrassments for any Minister: changing policy in a hurry in mid-stream; and being caught at the Dispatch Box in the crossfire of arguments that he or she has clearly never addressed before. What Sir Humphrey describes as "Courageous, Minister, courageous", becomes reckless ignorance if no one said, "Wait a minute" first.
It is a compliment to the civil service that the Select Committee has done so thorough and even-tempered a job.
These are serious matters and it is right that they should be seriously addressed. As they are addressed in the Select Committee report, let me also praise civil servants for their self-restraint in not wondering aloud when Ministers would apply the same management techniques to themselves as they cheerfully endorsed for officials.
There was no question but that Lady Thatcher ran a tight ship, yet whether a guru would have recognised it as management by objectives at individual level is more doubtful. Perhaps it is the highest compliment of all that civil servants are the regulars, the custodians of the constitution, while Ministers are simply territorials who pass by with short service commissions.

Mr. Radice: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that the Government have turned down our recommendation that there should an efficiency study of Ministers?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman, with whom I have also crossed swords on occasions, knows that when one passes from an Administration, one acquires a certain independence of mind on these matters.
At the end of 15 years as such a territorial I was and am left with one nagging doubt. If I am right, the debate started in the last century by the Earl of Iddesleigh, as he eventually became, will carry on to the next.
When the efficiency unit was starting on its mid-1980s trawl on the future of the service, which was the harbinger of the next steps agencies, I asked the senior official who interviewed me to define the management responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the Permanent Secretary. I continued asking that question at intervals while I was a Minister. I suspect that Permanent Secretaries found the question a little naive, which reinforces my analogy of the regulars and the territorials.
Yet I went on wondering and came to a mild moment of truth in my final month as a Minister, when giving evidence to the Select Committee on National Heritage when its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), asked who was responsible for what he considered the shambles of the British Library—a narrative 16 years in gestation that was conceived by a Labour Government in the 1970s.
Clearly, no one person has been continuously responsible throughout that period, though the distinguished architect has been involved throughout. It has been a chapter of long-term errors, yet to say that, whatever its underlying truth, is to imply that accountability is dead, so in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question I said, with full recognition of what I was saying, that I was responsible.
When it is all over, and that great library is functioning to the satisfaction and admiration of all, it may be a good case history for a PhD to determine where precisely between Ministers and officials responsibility did and does lie. That is as good a coda to this paean as I can imagine. The fact that we can discuss these issues academically, and with the public weal as our lodestar, is the best possible tribute to the quality of the civil service.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The final theme of the right hon. Member for Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) put what he said earlier into perspective. It was wholly proper for him to pay tribute to the support given by officials in a variety of offices, but to dwell on the nonsense and disasters of the British Library was to hark back to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in a masterful speech which made the Chancellor of the Duchy sound like a used car salesman. When that expression was first used, it was more derogatory than it seems nowadays, when used car salesmen are the summit of creation.
I should declare an interest in the subject of the debate as I am parliamentary consultant to the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. Lest that should be taken as accounting for the origins of my interest in the subject, I remind the House that I chaired the Estimates Committee inquiry which recommended setting up the Fulton committee. I also chaired a Treasury and Civil Service Committee inquiry into the effectiveness and efficiency of the civil service some 10 years ago.
The Select Committee reminded us of the dominant theme of the Fulton report, which was the cult of the amateur and the uncertain role of the professional and specialist civil servant and I shall speak mainly about that.
There is a general demoralisation in the civil service today, but nowhere more so than among professional and managerial staff. It is accounted for partly by the privatisation and contracting out and the unfair terms under which they are able to bid for work, and partly by the Government's lack of understanding of the areas for which the professionals have been responsible.
One example is the Transport Research Laboratory. Not long ago an edict excluding that office from examining road pricing came directly from the Secretary of State for Transport. The Building Research Establishment has been another victim at a time when the public and the building industry need much guidance in the development and use of new materials and the effects on the comfort of people in their homes of a muddle in Government standards, in the enforcement of building regulations and the improvement of standards, particularly in the public sector.
The enormously important role of the Meteorological Office in weather forecasting and the study of climate change calls for a back-up and integration of Government scientific activities generally into the environment, which has not been forthcoming.
The lack of perception by Government of the real role of the professional civil servant is the underlying problem, rather than the management questions. We have seen it in the attrition in the numbers and roles of Government chief

scientists. The extreme case is the Department of Trade and Industry, where there is no longer any such creature in that sad wreck of a Department. More attention must be paid to the role of doctors, economists, statisticians and, as the right hon. Member for Westminster, South reminded us, the use of architects. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North reminded us about the role of information technology specialists. All those aspects have been severely mishandled by the Government in the past 15 years.
The Government should consider carefully the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made about the role of Electronic Data Systems. I know that the Minister had some background in this area. I hope that he will look up the employment practices and the origins of EDS in the early days and compare them with the standards that he knows from his own experience are necessary in information technology and management consulting. EDS has always grossly exceeded in its promises and failed to fulfil them in many contracts in the United States, and hugely threatens to do so in Britain. Among the parts of administrative history that will have to be written is the story behind the emerging dominance of EDS, which is a sinister development under the present Government.
The role of the professional is important not just on the domestic front, but in shaping international debate and the framing of policy. Obviously, health is a key issue. At research level it is wholly possible for Britain to exercise influence in projects such as the Human Genome Organisation. All the ethical and moral debates underlying that will help to condition international attitudes in the emerging area of public policy, which will be of great importance to the future of our race.
Another subject which is less in the future, or at any rate more in the present of current parliamentary debate, is global climate change. Debate is hotting up with the shifting of the Antarctic ice sheet. The evidence will be coming in slowly over the next 10 years. There Britain developed a key role through the contribution of one man, Sir John Houghton, the former director general of the Meteorological Office, who became chairman of the research committee of the intergovernmental panel for climate change. That continues today through the role that Professor Julian Hunt, the present chief executive, is playing in the encouragement of meteorological development in other parts of the world.
The forecasting of the path of tropical storms was a Meteorological Office development, building on the idea of a Chinese meteorologist resident in Hong Kong, For Britain to be involved in forecasting the path of tropical storms which barely touch any remains of the British empire may seem a remote and unimportant development, but underlying it is a major shift in approach to the handling not only of meteorological forecasting but of the management and the forecasting of complex systems distributed through space generally.
The sort of issues that I am talking about can be handled only by Government and at a time of public debate when there is serious, restrained and competent discussion of what are quite difficult issues, not by a Government who think that they know all the answers before they start. Nowhere has that been more disastrous than in the sphere of economic policy, where we have suffered from a succession of Chancellors—excluding the present one—who thought that they knew all the answers


in advance and who failed to maintain the apparatus, the thoroughness of analysis and keeping up with the state of the art in the framing of economic policy. The Government's handling of appointments in the economic service, and currently in the statistical service, shows a sad rundown in the intellectual leadership that the Government and the public sector once provided. That is important not just for Government but for the way in which these things are handled in society generally.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology was in California a fortnight ago looking at the emergence of the new high-tech biotechnology companies. One thing that is clear there is that the drive and initiative is largely due to the emergence of a new type of animal. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South reminded us that he was an MBA. I add to that the fact that that qualification was gained at Harvard. Shortly before he gained his MBA at Harvard I was at the graduate school of arts and sciences at the same university. In America today, the MBA that he was and the PhD that I was have become one person. There is the integration, the breadth of skills and competencies at a double post-graduate level, which are the necessary tools of business, administrative and public service development in the future.
Where does that have any chance of emerging in the British civil service as it is conducted today? I just do not see it. In which Department? Where would young men and women with the necessary competencies be motivated to go? An admirable scheme has been developed by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Institution of Electrical Engineers, financed by David Sainsbury or one of his trusts, for the training of chartered engineers/MBAs. There are some 60 graduates of that double discipline. Will the Minister find out how many of them are working in the public sector? I doubt whether he will find more than three or four of the 60 there. That is not good enough if we are to get the necessary width of background in the public sector.
The themes 30 years ago at the time of the Fulton report were concerned with questioning amateurism and competence and comparing that with the professionalism and specialism that was needed. Today, the questions are much more those of strategic contracting out, market testing and worries about the politicisation of the civil service. Those themes may not be so far apart. The link between them is that they both reflect not so much the problems of the civil service as the problems of Parliament and our perception of the nature of the job of Government.
If we are to achieve a sensible balance in the development of a public service which is competent, which has breadth of vision and which is practical and realistic in the handling of social and political problems, the way forward has to be set in this place. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice)—I look forward to hearing what he has to say in summing up his admirable report—how far the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee really taps the frontiers of economic research. Unless the House is doing that, it cannot expect Government Departments to respond.
That process will receive a further shift onwards with the new generation of Members of Parliament who will come in after the next election. I am sure that we shall see a continuation in the raising of the technical background of Members of Parliament in many walks of

life. I am not a pessimist in any way about current developments, but they are not always of the nature that public debate and debate in the House in particular make them out to be.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with some of those points and, perhaps most important of all, that he will deal with some of the practical points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, which are of immediate public concern and also very much the concern of some of those civil servants in the union with which I am associated.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I see that it is relatively easy to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am delighted to have done so; but it is a pity that there are so few people in the Chamber on a Thursday evening. I have counted 12 in all on both sides of the House. That is a pity, because the future of the civil service and its relationship to the House and the British constitution is an important subject. I want to say a few words about that in the time available.
Before doing so, I want to take up a point that arises from what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said. It concerns the potential for British civil servants, as perhaps some of the best in the world, to contribute to the quality of government not only in Britain but increasingly, I hope and believe, in European Union institutions, such as the European Commission.
It has always struck me that the French, from a nation that I have long admired, seem to have the ability to second and post many of their best people, albeit for short periods, from the public service to other institutions, whether public or private, where French national interests can be served at the same time as the wider interest of those particular institutions. Invariably, that means that the French have mastered the art of writing the critical first draft in many Community initiatives over the years and have hogged some of the best positions, the key positions, in European institutions.
I have long pressed Ministers—I hope that they will make a note of this point tonight—to make an even greater effort to see that some of our best, brightest and most imaginative civil servants are seconded and posted to European institutions. That can be in Britain's interest and the wider European interest. I hope that we will give that greater prominence. That thought was prompted in my mind, albeit a bit tangentially, after listening to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South.
In talking about a flexible civil service for the late 20th and early 21st century, it is every bit as important that our civil service, with all its talent and opportunities, should engage, and should be encouraged to engage, in more secondments and swaps with the private sector. I know that there is an element of that now. Perhaps when he replies, my hon. Friend the Minister will give the House the latest figures on the extent of two-way movement of civil servants, in and out of the civil service, for temporary periods, to invigorate the private sector with their perspectives from the public sector, and to do the obverse—to invigorate the public sector with very necessary perspectives of the private sector. I fear that, all too often, those who leave the civil service on short-term secondment—or what was intended to be short-term secondment—for the private sector do not return, for


reasons of pay, conditions, morale, and so on. If the figures show that there is a net outflow, it should be a warning sign to Ministers to do something about the problems that might lie behind it.
On the more central subject of the debate—the issues raised in the Government's latest White Paper on the civil service—and prompted by the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, on which I have the honour to serve, I should like to say how much I have benefited, as always, from the free adult education that is available to those of us who sit on Select Committees. I have served on three Select Committees in my time: Foreign Affairs, Science and Technology, back in the bad old 1970s, and now the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. I find them most interesting. Whatever impact we may or may not have on policy in those Committees—in this case, I think that we have had some impact on policy—they benefit the quality of debate and thought in Parliament by providing a free and top-class adult education for those who are lucky enough to serve on them.
I have played some part, therefore, in bringing about what we might describe as the all-party consensus which lay behind our report. I am delighted to pay personal tribute to my hon. Friend—I do describe him as such—the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), because he gave the Committee considerable wise leadership and went out of his way to build the consensus which helped to make the report that much more influential.
It is timely to pay tribute, like my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), in whose constituency I live—he is keeping an eye on me—to the British civil service, not only for its qualities, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in his opening remarks, but for its ability to manage and, indeed, survive extensive change within its own sphere. That was the subject of much of our investigation in Committee. It is notable and worth setting on record that, during the Conservative party's period in office so far, the overall size of the British civil service has been projected to fall from the 755,000 which we inherited in 1979 to 477,000 at the end of the current Parliament. That is a significant reduction.
Clearly, there have been some worries in certain quarters that such a reduction—indeed, it has been described as a fragmentation—could lead to a severe loss of morale, which could be permanent rather than temporary. I was therefore relieved to see this said succinctly in paragraph 36 of the White Paper:
The Government accepts that the process of change"—
change in the civil service—
is unsettling; but the Civil Service, like other areas of the economy, has to adapt if the country is to improve its competitiveness.
That is a slightly bleak statement of reality, but it would be naive to suppose that our excellent civil service could have stood aside from the process of seeking greater efficiency—and, indeed, achieving it—which the private sector had to go through, very often in even more difficult conditions.
It is fair to put one's hand up on the Conservative Benches and say, "Yes, it is true that we have privatised parts of the state." We have privatised not only the state industrial sector, which used to be called the nationalised industries, but the very heartland of the state itself. That

was necessary and timely. It has happened in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries as well, to a greater or lesser extent. So we are not being eccentric. In my view, the state apparatus that remains—this is the important point—is more open and more efficient and is delivering public services to a higher standard than 15 or 16 years ago. I welcome that. It is one more reason to signal one's gratitude and admiration to the civil servants, at all levels—from the permanent secretaries right the way down to the humblest clerk in a social security office—who are delivering services in an exemplary way.
One important conclusion to be drawn from civil servants' achievement is that, in parallel with the dramatic reduction in the size of the civil service, indeed even in its thrust—with greater emphasis on policy advice in relatively small Departments at the centre and greater emphasis on the agency principle in terms of the delivery of public services—my hon. Friend the Minister should consider the need for fewer Departments and fewer Ministers. That is perhaps a revolutionary thought, but in the current Government there are about 90 Ministers, in round terms.
There are also all sorts of Ministers-in-waiting, like my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and others who sit on the Bench here. They are known as parliamentary private secretaries. Admittedly they do not take the Queen's shilling, but I suggest that the whole apparatus is becoming almost overladen, particularly when the civil service itself, the people whom Ministers are supposed to command, in military terminology, has slimmed down so admirably. My suggestion is that the great advantage of slimming down ministerial ranks might include the following points. Lines of accountability could be improved. I have been a junior Minister. I know a little bit about it. I have also been PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I have seen some of these things from the inside. There is no doubt that lines of accountability can get blurred, even in small Departments, let alone large Departments like Environment or Trade and Industry, by having a plethora of junior Ministers.
It is fair to say that, in Churchill's first post-war Government, it was standard practice to have only one junior Minister in a Department. Who is to say that the problems that Britain faced in those years were any smaller than the problems today? In many ways, they were greater, because we had our imperial responsibilities, and so on. Equally, PPSs scarcely existed. There were one or two to very senior members of the Cabinet and that was that. I know that the Government Whip is looking worried, but that heretic thought is worthy of consideration.

Mr. Brooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in that period of Government in the mid-1950s, it was perfectly possible that if the parliamentary secretary was not available, the PPS might be asked to take a decision himself?

Mr. Forman: That sounds admirable. I am sure that some wise decisions were taken in that way. I remember reading that in the Churchill Administration of the early 1950s, when Sir Winston was seriously ill, the government of the country was in the reliable hands of Mr. Christopher Soames.

Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the role of junior Ministers. I was told by no less than "Otto"


Clarke—the formidable Sir Richard Clarke, the inventor of the modern system of public expenditure control—that junior Ministers functioned merely as parliamentary public relations officers for their Departments, and had no managerial policy role.

Mr. Forman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his copious memory.
I suggested that the first advantage lay in the improvement of lines of accountability. The second is the possibility of more coherent policy making: the existence of fewer, slightly larger Departments would necessitate better co-ordination across subject areas. Thirdly and importantly, Parliament would benefit from more wise contributions such as the one that we heard tonight from my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, whose speech was eloquent and even elegiac.
Let me turn to my main point. I intervened on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in an attempt to establish what he saw as the constitutional role of the civil service—an issue that the Select Committee considered to be central. Either I did not put my question clearly or my right hon. Friend misunderstood: he did what I rather expected him to do, and rehearsed the list of admirable qualities possessed by the British civil service.
We are all agreed on those qualities. I believe that all tonight's speeches will be found to have referred to them, in all sincerity. In a more precise context, however, the role of the civil service raises issues relating to the nature of the British constitution—to the way in which the service, which is sometimes described as an important pillar of the overall architecture, fits into that architecture and to how well entrenched it is. We need to consider whether it is on shaky foundations, and on what its position depends.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said that he had an open mind on the question of a proper statute to back up the civil service code that our report proposes. I am glad about that: perhaps by the end of the debate we shall have been able to close my right hon. Friend's mind in our favour—to persuade him of the wisdom of our report. He said that one of the conditions was that the legislation should be narrowly focused. In a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold)—a copy was probably sent to all members of the Committee—my right hon. Friend specifically stated that such legislation, if it went ahead, should not include attempts to extend its scope.
I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), bearing in mind his expressed wish to give a fair wind to the legislation. Perhaps he will give an assurance that he would not only give it a fair wind, but not seek to extend its scope.

Mr. McNamara: The Chancellor of the Duchy said that it would be possible at a later date to change the legislation by means of affirmative resolution in the House—by means of a statutory instrument. Given the necessary consensus, that could certainly be done. We

welcome the principle, but we have yet to see the precise terms of the Bill. We shall want to hold discussions with the civil service unions before reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Forman: I am delighted to hear that. I think that it constitutes some extra progress.
My right hon. Friend said that the constitutional position of the civil service should not change. In a moment, I shall ask what that really means. He also said that there should be all-party support for the change. That is clearly vital in a constitution that involves no single codified document to govern the country's affairs: we must do everything by all-party consensus, if it is to last. As I have said, I am delighted by what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has said, and I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will say something similarly supportive if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
What, then, is the role and position of the civil service in the constitution? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy drew my attention, in the second chapter of his reply to me—the first was not quite so forthcoming—to the first paragraph of the proposed new civil service code. It states that the duty of the civil service is
to assist the duly constituted Government, of whatever political complexion, in fonnulating policies of the Government, carrying out decisions of the Government and in administering public services for which the Government is responsible".
That is a fairly clear statement, but it has important implications.
The statement is, for example, very traditional. In the eyes of the current ministerial team—I do not know whether this would be true of the Opposition, if they ever returned to office—the civil service has no constitutional position independent of Ministers. That is important in the light of the debate about Clive Ponting, and numerous other events in recent years.

Mr. Radice: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one change is contained in the second paragraph of the document: all those duties and responsibilities are subject to the code.

Mr. Forman: That is a potential advantage. If we examine the constitutional lineage of the proposals, we see that the code clearly suggests that civil servants are servants of Ministers in the Government of the day while Ministers, in their turn, are servants of the Crown—hence the expression "Her Majesty's Government". My interpretation is that, strictly speaking, civil servants are not seen by Sir Robin Butler and his senior colleagues to owe any duty to the state over and above their duty to Ministers. That is an important constitutional point.

Mr. McNamara: In my speech, I said that the relationship between civil servants and Parliament—particularly the House of Commons—still needed exploration, as did the question of public interest and "whistle blowers". Both issues will be discussed in Lord Justice Scott's report, which I look forward to reading. My point was that they were thorny questions, but I do not think that that would prevent the Labour party from approving the legislation that we need for the code; the other parties can speak for themselves.

Mr. Forman: The hon. Gentleman was right to mention Scott in this context. Scott was always hanging over the Select Committee's deliberations. We wondered


when he would report, and what the implications would be. Eventually we decided to press ahead, which was probably just as well: if we had waited for Scott, we might have waited for ever.
Ministers should, however, take full account of whatever Lord Justice Scott has to say, and also of what Lord Nolan says. Incidentally, I should be interested to know whether Lord Nolan has officially been invited to comment on the draft code and, if so, when his comments are expected and whether they will be published, along with others.
Because there is a chain of responsibility from civil servants to Ministers to Crown, it puts a particular responsibility on Ministers not to ask or require civil servants to do things that they properly should not do. It is all very well having a code of practice with statutory backing for civil servants—I welcome that—but we need to think carefully about something analogous to cover Ministers.
I am sorry to have to say that, but events over the past 30 to 40 years—I go back that far in my thinking—justify our considering it. It makes all the more important the idea of having a code with statutory backing. If a code is simply dependent on Ministers acting under existing powers, through an Order in Council or whatever, that would not have the same authority in these matters and would not enable arbitration to take place on the independent and authoritative basis that would apply if there were statutory backing.
In a system that does not have a codified constitution and where we are living under a regime of alleged parliamentary supremacy, it becomes all the more necessary to give a code statutory backing so that it is credible in the eyes of not only civil servants—all 477,000 of them, or whatever the figure is—but, just as important, in the eyes of the British public. There is no way at present to entrench such a code other than for Parliament, with all-party consensus, to give its support to legislation designed for that purpose.
If and when we have a more far-reaching form of constitutional change, the position might be different. In the interim, for as long as we have the status quo it is vital—and this is my main point—that there should be clear statutory backing for the code. It is the one area where there is an element of ambiguity in the Government's response to the Select Committee report. Other than that, we welcome the way in which Ministers have responded to what we said. Not only do I believe that there should be such an Act of Parliament but, as a little dicky bird tells me that there is not exactly a plethora of candidates for legislative slots in the coming Session—for various reasons which I shall not go into tonight—that strengthens the argument for an appropriate Bill finding an early and prominent place in the next Queen's Speech.

Mr. David Chidgey: I compliment the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech. I share his dismay at finding the House so empty for a debate on an important part of the fabric of the Government and governance of this country. Indeed, I feel as though I have inadvertently wandered into a rather discreet and erudite

debating club, comprised solely of the members of the Select Committee. I hope that they will excuse me for gate-crashing what is almost a private affair—

Mr. Radice: Please come in.

Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman—it is one more to swell the numbers.
I offer my congratulations, which I am sure all hon. Members would wish to share, to the civil service staff for the way in which, over the past 15 years, they have stoically coped with the trauma and uncertainty of major changes in their working culture. I am sure that we all realise that that cannot have been easy and still is not easy. My party and I welcome the concept of introducing a civil service code; we should pursue the suggestion that that be backed by statutory obligations. Of course, it will depend on the detail. It is a vital part of establishing for civil service staff exactly where they stand. I take on board the point made about accountability and responsibility. I shall return to that later.
In his opening remarks, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of efficiency and cost cutting in the same breath as retaining the quality, integrity and honesty of the civil service. I shall deal with that in due course. I confess that before I was elected to Parliament I was a consulting civil engineer—so I have been on the other side of market testing, having been successful in securing work that came from that process. I worked closely with civil servants who were about to lose their functions, if not their jobs, so I knew what they were going through. Many of them were dedicated but despondent civil and public servants. Many were high-quality staff, but they had been trained and were operating in a different culture from the one in which we now try to operate our national institutions.
Privatisation can be a ruthless tool with which to gear up efficiency. The emphasis should be on the modern management techniques of establishing clear goals and objectives for staff. Staff are flexible and will change, so we should not always rely on the sledgehammer to crack the nut. There is a great danger of discarding dedicated and experienced staff when motivation is the prime ingredient that we need. I say that from my experience of being on the other side of the fence and seeing the effects that the changes had on the morale of staff. It was a great tragedy that that happened.
We have heard a great deal tonight, especially from Conservative Members, about cuts and efficiencies and how the Government's public sector policies have generated enormous savings. We need to look at that claim a little more closely. There is a feeling—indeed, there may be a case for saying—that the reality is that in some cases the Government are attempting to tackle waste where there is none. I cite as an example the staffing cuts at Customs and Excise, especially among VAT inspectors. I am sure that the House knows what good value VAT inspectors are. Each one costs about £25,000 a year in salary, pension and so on, but on average brings in about £360,000 in revenue. That is not a bad return by anyone's calculations.
The number of inspectors has been cut by about 600 when, instead, we should have targeted those resources on combating an increasing problem in our ports—the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco. That is especially true in my constituency as there are several cross-channel ports


on the Hampshire coastline. Increasing rather than cutting the number of VAT inspectors could result in earning another £500 million a year in tax revenue.
The Government are not dealing adequately with an extraordinary amount of real waste that still riddles parts of Government bureaucracy. I want to deal with some of the key issues. I shall be as brief as possible because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak.
I want to refer, first, to absenteeism in Government Departments and the lack of policy to deal with the problem. There seems to be an ever-increasing rise in the use of external consultants. There is almost a total lack of information on personnel matters from many Government Departments, which any efficient organisation must have. I should like to examine, and perhaps the Minister will reply to this later, some of the claims for efficiency improvement through job-shedding. The figures that I have seen seem to have gaps. I should like to test that if I can.
Another important issue is the damage to staff morale, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members. When I come to my final remarks, I should like to talk about the vacuum that has been created by the Government devolving their responsibilities to agencies, which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington dealt with. It is an important issue for the civil service's future.
Many hon. Members may have noticed that, in recent months, I have asked Ministers a series of questions. Some of the results that have come through are interesting. In 1993, the Occupational Health Service estimated that the direct cost of sickness absence in the civil service, taking account of salaries, pensions and national insurance contributions, was about £459 million. No one is saying that those costs can be wiped out at the stroke of a pen. Of course there will always be absenteeism: that is a factor in any organisation, business or institution. But the figures show clearly that absenteeism rates are running far higher than the average, and that, therefore, a substantial cost saving could be made.
In 1993, the National Audit Office conducted a review of sickness absences in the Inland Revenue. Its review uncovered serious shortcomings in the way in which absenteeism was dealt with. The Comptroller and Auditor General wrote to me on the matter. As a result its work in 1993 with the Inland Revenue, the National Audit Office found that it was necessary to produce guidance on best practice for other departments and agencies to incorporate. The recommendations have stood from that time. I have to ask the question: what has happened since?
Despite the guidance, in 1994, there seem to be more departments and agencies with rising rates of sickness absence than departments and agencies with falling rates. Despite guidance, absenteeism is still rising. More than 60 per cent. of the departments and agencies that I questioned had an absenteeism rate above the figure that the Industrial Society identified as the national average.
I would not wish hon. Members to think that this is a witch-hunt of civil servants who are not performing properly. I am trying to emphasise the trauma, lack of morale and despondency that generate the illnesses that create extra absenteeism, which must be dealt with in this period of change. The position is simply not good enough. The Government must recognise that there is a real waste of resources on their doorstep. They must take steps to tackle it.
In answer to my written questions, a number of Government Departments claim to have introduced modern management techniques, such as return-to-work interviews and better defined policies on absence and absenteeism. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has an MBA and will be familiar with those two techniques, which are important tools in management. Absenteeism is still rising and it is clearly linked to falling morale.
The Government seem to be conducting a love affair with external consultants—and not a cheap one either. They are spending more than £860 million a year on their services. But having paid the bill, all too often they seem to dump them, to use a current phrase. Time and again, they ignore the advice that external consultants provide, and, speaking as an ex-consultant, I know the frustrations that that can generate. In recent parliamentary replies, not a single Department has been able to identify any savings from expenditure on external consultants. Only two agencies managed to identify any savings at all, which totalled £382,000. That is a pathetic return on expenditure of £860 million. That has come about despite the recommendations of the Government's efficiency unit that Departments should be assessing moneys saved through consultancy work for the benefits expected, and to determine when those benefits are likely to appear. It has not happened.
The lack of information about personnel and staffing is a great cause of concern, especially in relation to absenteeism. What information is available from Government Departments? What responses have I had to questions? From the Foreign Office, I have had nothing; from the Department of Employment, nothing; from the Employment Service, nothing; from the Ministry of Defence nothing; and from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, nothing. Those five bodies employ about 145,000 people—more than a quarter of all civil service employees—yet not one of them was able to produce absenteeism figures in response to my questions.
Even more surprising, none of the MOD agencies, which were set up with the aim of improving efficiency, was able to provide any information on sickness and other forms of absenteeism, which are key factors in any study of manpower efficiency. Even when agencies were able to provide me with information on sickness absenteeism and its causes, they seemed to be incapable of getting it right. It appears that different hon. Members received different answers to the same questions.
When I challenged Departments about that, the excuses that I received included the use of incorrect figures for staff in post, the omission of categories of sickness absence, and the inclusion of
certain absences not due to sickness".
The mystery deepens.
Similar unavailability and inaccuracies extended into the external consultancies. For example, the Department of Health produced figures for spending on external consultancies that directly contradicted those given for the efficiency report, while the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment all declined to produce figures, despite the efficiency unit's recommendation that all Departments should be able to do so.
I deal now with the number of jobs that have been shed recently, especially in the past year. The Government claim to have made efficiency savings in the number of


civil servants employed. I believe that the figure currently cited for the number of jobs shed in the past year is about 40,000. I am sure that the Minister will confirm or correct that figure later, but I should like to know whether it includes the jobs that have been created or are being paid for through contracting out. Is 40,000 a net or gross figure? I think that we should benefit from clarification.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the developments in, the restructuring of and the changes to the culture of the civil service is staff morale. The constant and arbitrary use of the figure of 500,000 personnel as the target to which the civil service will be reduced, without it being related to specific savings or Departments, is having a devastating effect on morale. Indeed, the report recognises that morale is an important factor that will inevitably affect the quality of service. Of course, it also has a direct impact on absenteeism and the consequent lack of efficiency.
Morale has been badly damaged by the many changes that have so far occurred in the operation of the civil service and it will be damaged further by the Government's proposals for contracting out and for privatisation in the future. Of course, there is a need to increase efficiency, reduce bureaucracy and shed unnecessary jobs—we live in a changing world—but in making privatisation an inevitability the Government have created chronic job insecurity by subjecting staff to constant expenditure reviews and market testing. However, the Government still expect staff to be highly motivated and to perform to the highest standards. Frankly, that is unreasonable. In fact, there is a catastrophic decline in the morale of civil servants, which is manifesting itself in increasing absenteeism, and that must be dealt with. The increasing absenteeism rate is clearly a symptom of something more serious.
It is all very well for the Government to attempt to justify their continual cost reviews and market testing by claiming that
the Civil Service … has to adapt if the country is to improve its competitiveness",
but, unless they deal with the trauma and despondency that they have created in the work force, their claims will continue to have a hollow ring.
I urge the Government to look again at the difficulties facing agencies in developing long-term plans and at the periodicity of the review—I know that it has been extended but has it been extended enough?—and, above all, to recognise the need to create a period of stability in the civil service. Agencies could then make proper and meaningful long-term plans and civil servants would be able to regain some sense of job security, job satisfaction, belonging and achievement. The result would be improved staff morale and real improvements in internal efficiency and service to the public.
Hon. Members have already mentioned accountability—another matter that needs clarification. The Select Committee found unconvincing the Government's attempts to draw a sharp distinction between accountability, which cannot be delegated by Ministers, and responsibility, which can. I have not found anything in the Government's response to the report or heard anything in the debate tonight that could remove that feeling of uncertainty. Indeed, I found nothing in fiascos such as the Parkhurst break-out, for which neither Derek Lewis nor the Home

Secretary was prepared to take responsibility, that convinced me that they would not be repeated. It is a very important issue that affects public confidence. Such examples highlight problems that will persist unless some clarification is given and acted on.
Clearly, changes are still to be made in the civil service. Improvements must be made in the efficiency of the bureaucracy. There needs to be better management practice, better long-term planning and some understanding of staff needs and motivation. The reforms need to be addressed further. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said earlier—the hon. Member for Durham, North insisted that the right hon. Gentleman expanded on the point—that it would be ironic if the Government came to regard the most successful reforms for decades in the civil service as simply a transitional phase and a staging post to privatisation.
We need, as the Committee recommended, positive assertions of the value of those agencies remaining in the civil service. Modern management techniques and the stability for which I am calling are the means to address the problems facing civil servants. Frankly, reliance on ham-fisted, dogma-driven policies is not.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I intend to make a brief speech. I join other hon. Members in expressing regret that there has not been greater attendance of this debate on an extremely important issue. After 15 years of a Conservative Government, government is still Britain's biggest business and the Government are Britain's biggest employer. It is therefore important not only to our economy but to our constitution that we get it right.
I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the hard work of many civil servants throughout the country in various Departments and agencies. It is a very difficult time for them, yet they work hard to serve the public and to ensure that services obtained from Government are provided in the best way that they know. It is important to pay such a tribute because civil servants have gone through a period of great change. For many of them, that change has caused much personal insecurity over their future and, often, caused alarm about the prospects for the areas in which they work. I recently spoke to people who were working in the Insolvency Service. They were desperately worried about the future, not only of the organisation for which they worked, but of the quality of the work if the Government's proposed changes were undertaken. They deserve all the tributes and all the respect that they can get from hon. Members.
I welcome most of the Government's response to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee report. I was able to join that Committee towards the latter part of its preparation of that report. At times, it seemed as if the report would never end, but it did. Although it has obviously not set the House alight with enthusiasm, it was valuable and workmanlike. The great British institution of our civil service is important to the very foundation of our constitution.
I join in the praise that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), whose chairmanship of the Treasury and Civil Service Sub-Committee during the preparation of the report was


an example to us all, displaying the skill needed to achieve a consensus report that all members of the Committee could support.
Today I shall talk primarily about one issue—the values of the civil service, especially impartiality. Many values are mentioned in the Select Committee's report and in the Government's response to it—such as the permanence of the civil service, its impartiality, its meritocratic nature, its honesty, accountability and integrity, its financial propriety, its commitment and its high standards. It is important that all those values be present in a civil service, and that we protect them, but the main and central concern of any Government must be to ensure that impartiality is protected.
At times during my speech I may appear to introduce a note of partisanship, but that is not my intention. If there is partisanship, it is partisanship not for party but for the constitutional role of a non-party political civil service.
There has been concern over many years—it was especially true in the 1980s and to some extent before that—about the way in which the impartiality of the senior civil service has been brought into question. The phrase "economical with the truth"—the words of a head of the home civil service, Sir Robin Butler—has gone into the dictionaries of quotations.

Mr. Radice: No, it was Sir Robert Armstrong who said that.

Mr. O'Brien: My apologies, it was Sir Robert Armstrong.
The quotation "economical with the truth" has done great damage to the reputation of the civil service, because people remember it.
There was also the television series in which Sir Humphrey Appleby was presented as the image of the civil servant. Okay, that was a joke, but at the same time it helped to give Sir Robin Butler, who took over from Sir Robert Armstrong, the responsibility of ensuring that he enhanced the public reputation of the civil service—and I am sure that that is what he set out to do.
Not only senior civil servants but the Government have the responsibility to protect that impartiality and integrity. The Government hold the integrity and impartiality of the civil service in trust for the nation, and I fear that there is concern that a Government who have been too long in office may begin to treat the senior civil service as a sort of particular party political fiefdom. That is the real danger to the impartiality of the civil service, because the civil service should not get too close to party politics. I fear that there is real concern that it may have done so in recent years.
Certain incidents immediately spring to mind. While the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was before the House last year, civil servants were asked to provide certain Government Back Benchers with amendments designed to wreck it. That Bill had wide support in this place—on both sides of the House, to some extent. Yet the Government ordered the amendments to be prepared. The civil servants cannot be blamed for preparing them; they were told to do so, and it was right for them to obey the order. No blame can attach to them.
However, I think that the Ministers who ordered the amendments to be prepared in such large numbers broke the spirit of trust in which they hold the responsibility of government. They should not put civil servants into the

position where they are expected to wreck a private Member's Bill of that nature, especially when it is known that the Bill has great support in the House.
Sir Robin Butler suggested to me in evidence that he knew of previous Governments who had been involved in preparing amendments to private Members' Bills for Back Benchers. That has happened for many years under different Governments. It has not been wrong when the objective has been to assist Members in genuinely putting forward amendments to improve a Bill. However, questions must be asked when civil servants are obliged to provide amendments to wreck a Bill, and particularly a private Member's Bill.
Another issue that caused great concern to members of the Select Committee when Sir Robin Butler gave evidence was two investigations undertaken by Sir Robin. Again, I speak not from a partisan point of view, as hon. Members on both sides of that Committee raised their concerns. Sir Robin Butler, as the head of the home civil service and the Cabinet Secretary, was ordered to investigate the incidents by the Prime Minister.
The first incident involved the Chief Secretary to the Treasury's visit to a Paris hotel. I do not wish to go into the details of that visit, as I am not particularly interested in the background. I am interested in what happened between Sir Robin Butler and the Prime Minister. Questions were raised about who paid the hotel bill, and the issue became a matter of intense media and political in-fighting. The Government had recently lost a number of Ministers through resignations, and did not want to lose the recently appointed Chief Secretary.
Into that political and media dogfight, the Prime Minister appears to have plunged Sir Robin Butler by asking him to undertake an investigation. Sir Robin was, at best, ill qualified to undertake any such investigation, as he did not in any previous incarnation have experience of being a policeman, a private investigator or a barrister trained in interrogation. He had none of the qualifications for playing the detective, yet it appears that he was supposed to conduct an investigation and give a report to the Prime Minister on what happened.
Sir Robin asked questions, got answers and accepted them. He did not question all the main witnesses for the prosecution; for example, it appears that he did not question Mr. Al Fayed. Sir Robin then provided the Prime Minister with a report. The importance of the report was not just that it was used to give advice to a Minister or a Prime Minister, but that a report prepared by the head of the home civil service and the Cabinet Secretary was used to limit the political damage being sustained by the Government at a particular time. The suggestion being made was that anyone challenging the conclusion of the report was questioning the integrity of the head of the home civil service.
The Prime Minister had put the Cabinet Secretary—a supposedly non-political and impartial figure—in a position where he was being used to prevent questions from being asked by Opposition Members about party political concerns that were being aired legitimately in this place and in the media. That report effectively stopped the damage that was being sustained by the Government. Yet the investigation that was carried out was not thorough, and questions remained to be asked. But how could Opposition Members ask those questions without calling into question the integrity of the Cabinet Secretary, which we had no wish to do?
The Prime Minister should never have allowed the Cabinet Secretary to become involved in that sort of party political row. It was a dogfight. It was a row in which the Prime Minister got the Cabinet Secretary involved, and when Sir Robin Butler was asked to undertake that investigation, he should have said, "No, Prime Minister. It would not be appropriate in these circumstances to do that." It might have been appropriate for the Whips or the chairman of the Conservative party, or someone else, to undertake that inquiry.
Similar concerns have arisen about another investigation in which Sir Robin Butler was asked to become involved, when two hon. Members were the subject of accusations about money. Again, I do not propose to go into the details of the case. The question is: should a Cabinet Secretary ever get involved in investigating the circumstances of Back-Bench Members? No Prime Minister should involve a Cabinet Secretary in such matters as it may compromise the impartiality of the civil service. It may be that it does not; Sir Robin Butler may have acted entirely properly. But the perception of many people outside this place as well as, I regret to say, many inside it, is that that investigation should not have been carried out by that individual and that impartiality might have been compromised.
The Prime Minister is in a position of trust in this matter. Perhaps unintentionally, but perhaps also with some malice aforethought, he managed to use the Cabinet Secretary to limit the party political damage that his Government were sustaining.
A further issue has arisen in the past day or so. Serious questions are being asked about civil servants' involvement in a particular Cabinet Committee. That Committee's aim appears to be to provide the Government with a way to deal with policy problems and issues that will cause them difficulties in the run-up to the next election. It is about winning the next election, and the chairman of the Conservative party is on the Committee. He is a Minister without portfolio—he has no departmental responsibility—yet civil servants are being asked to advise and assist him in performing his task of winning the next election for the Conservative party.
Other questions have been raised over a period about the payment of a Chancellor of the Exchequer's legal expenses and other matters. All those issues have caused many people to question whether there has been what has been called a
weakening of the moral compass
in the Government and their relationship with the civil service. Lord Callaghan has expressed concern about politicisation. That concern is, to some extent, justified by what we have seen in recent years.
Let that be a warning to the Government and the civil service that the values of the civil service must be held in trust and protected, not only by civil servants but by the Government. The Olympian Sir Robin Butler should not allow himself to be dragged into the gutter of partisan politics, nor should any civil servant. Some members of the Select Committee fear that impartiality has been undermined, and that should never happen again.

Mr. Giles Radice: We have had a good and thoughtful debate, in terms of quality more than quantity. We have heard interesting speeches from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who played a prominent role in drawing up our Select Committee report, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who made some perceptive remarks and put us on our mettle in the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. We shall bear his remarks in mind.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) on mentioning some important matters. It would have been wrong if the debate had passed without mention of those issues, and I shall refer to them later. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his excellent speech.
Perhaps I may say a word to the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science, who is to reply to the debate. His appointment drew some rude remarks from some areas of the press about rats joining sinking ships, which was unkind as I do not believe that he is a rat at all, although he has perhaps changed his mind more frequently than most. I have known him well in several guises, and when we started out as rookie Labour Members of Parliament I certainly would not have supposed that he would end up as a Conservative Minister; nevertheless, I wish him well in his new post.
The report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has in some senses dominated the debate, and it is perhaps fair that it should. The background to our report was great managerial change, the next steps process—we have been told by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that that now greatly exceeds 60 per cent. and is likely to be 75 per cent. of the civil service in the future—and from 1992 onwards market testing, contracting out, privatisation, and so on. Many people have regarded those changes as increasing the danger of fragmenting the civil service. That argument was made to us by several of our witnesses, including former heads of the Civil Service.
There is no doubt that problems of morale result from all the great change that is going on. Although we were unable to carry out a survey ourselves—I shall discuss that in a moment—a number of other surveys of Government Departments have shown that there is a problem of morale in the civil service. Difficulties are also caused by bringing a great many private enterprise people into the public service. When the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, appeared before the Committee last February, he emphasised that some of the private sector managers being attracted into the public sector do not always understand that special care is needed when one is in charge of public money. That is obviously part of the background.
One political party has been in power for a long time, having been elected at four successive general elections. Although there is no evidence of general politicisation of the civil service, as Lord Callaghan told us, inevitably the younger civil servants pick up the scent, and I believe that that is true. As an Opposition Member of Parliament, I had indeed noted a difference between the attitude of the younger civil servants and that of those who have known


another Administration. With the possibility of a change of Administration ahead, perhaps things will improve in that respect.
The Scott inquiry has revealed a great deal about the workings of Government, hovering like an angel above our deliberations—or perhaps like a black cloud over the Government and Whitehall, but it has certainly influenced both sides.
Two things emerged strongly early on in the Committee's hearings. The first was the importance of the civil service. I believe that all who have taken part in the debate have paid tribute to the civil service as a great national asset, and our report begins by saying just that. We go on to say:
Since the 1870s, it has been the permanent and impartial instrument of all administrations. Governments have always seen it as their duty to preserve its efficiency and honesty for their successors. The Civil Service's commitment to the highest standards of performance and conduct is a guarantee of constitutional and financial propriety and good government.
It is therefore very important in our constitution and in the running of our democracy.
There was general support from our witnesses for the values which underpin the civil service, including its non-partisan nature. No one argued, for example, that we should have a "spoils system". Everyone agreed that we should have an impartial civil service, with integrity, the ability to act objectively, selection for promotion on merit, and accountability. Above all, it was agreed that we should have an honest civil service. A number of our witnesses reminded us just how important it is to have an honest civil service. One only has to go to countries where civil servants are not honest to realise the economic cost of that and how it undermines the democratic process. We must therefore preserve those good qualities.
In the past, the shared values of the civil service were associated with shared ways of working, and shared systems of pay, grading and departmental organisation within the service. The intangible values to which I have been referring were linked to more tangible unifying factors. With reform and fragmentation, however, many of those tangible common elements have disappeared.
It seemed to us that in the new era of managerialism, the old methods of ensuring that the values of the civil service were maintained were no longer sufficient. That was the case for having a proper code, which has distinct advantages over the plethora of existing codes. It offers far greater clarity about civil service values, and about the duties and responsibilities of civil servants and Ministers in relation to civil servants. The code applies to all civil servants, not just to mandarins, and is both concise and comprehensive.
I stress the importance of the second paragraph of the code, which states that civil servants owe their loyalty to the Government
subject to the provisions of this Code".
That is the first time that any external authority has been brought into the relationship between Government and civil servants. I agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington that we need to enshrine that aspect. That is the case for having statutory backing in the way that he described.
The code contains a new duty on Ministers to familiarise themselves with its content and not to ask civil servants to act in breach of it. That is important. It asks Ministers to behave with propriety. It reminds civil

servants of the importance of obeying the law, of dealing with the public honestly, fairly and without maladministration, and of ensuring the proper use of public money. It reminds them of their duty in relation to the separation of public and private interests and their confidentiality, and of their political impartiality. We say that it should be a condition of employment that all civil servants should read the code and conduct themselves accordingly.
We also say that if the code is to work effectively civil servants should have the assurance that if Ministers or heads of departments ask them to do things which are unconstitutional, illegal or improper, the civil servants should be able to appeal to an independent, outside body—hence the case for a civil service commission based on statute. The statute is important, and I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said about that. A subsequent Government or Administration must not be able to remove it: it must be part of our permanent constitution.
I am delighted that the Government have broadly accepted the code. I am delighted that they have accepted that there should be an independent element in the appeal system and I am delighted that they are open minded about statutory backing. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and of the Labour party for the idea. I am also grateful for the support of the Liberal party, which is major progress.
All those factors add up to a big triumph for the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee. Select Committees occasionally take a bit of stick—as happened for different reasons earlier this week. The study was long running. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien)—I, too, thought that we would never finish it. The inquiry was very comprehensive and I give thanks to my colleagues on both sides of the House for enabling the Committee to reach a consensus. It is interesting how the process of argument during the Committee hearings changed our minds and that of the Government. I do not pretend that the Government's change of heart was due only to the brilliance of our arguments or even to the power of Conservative Back Benchers who served on the Committee. The changing political situation—the fact that the Scott report was pending—also had an effect. The Government argued strongly against the Committee's proposals for 18 months, but then they changed their minds and I give them credit for making that excellent decision.
The time remaining is short and I should like to give the Minister the opportunity to answer some of the questions raised in the debate. I shall therefore not mention a number of issues to which I wanted to refer, such as the selection of top civil servants and the fact that the senior appointments committee has not been abolished as we had hoped in favour of the Civil Service Commission, although there has been some improvement.
We are sceptical about fast-streaming and I do not believe that the Government response has been adequate on that point. We proposed project teams and the idea of policy audits, but we have not had much joy in those areas either. With regard to managerial changes, we support the "next steps" process, but it should not serve as a stepping


stone to privatisation. Market testing and contracting out must not be used in the doctrinaire way in which the Government have used them in the past.
My position is this: efficiency changes, yes; permanent revolution, no. I do not believe that reducing civil service numbers as an end in itself—irrespective of the effect on function and morale—is a sensible way to proceed. It is a pity that the Government did not accept our request to commission a survey of civil servants and we drew our own conclusions from that refusal: the Government were clearly worried about the final results.
We have not solved the problems in the area of accountability, and we were certainly not impressed by Sir Robin Butler's distinction between accountability and responsibility. The problem with his explanation is that no one would ever be responsible for their actions. We were also not impressed by those Ministers who appeared before the Committee and said that there were occasions when Ministers could lie to the House of Commons and get away with it.
Committee members appreciated the difficulties with agencies and the way in which responsibility could fall between Ministers and agencies, with the result that no one would take the rap in the event of a disaster. Several examples of that were cited in today's debate. One proposed solution is that chief executives could be responsible to select committees for framework documents. However, I do not pretend that we have answered all the questions and I think that we should examine the subject of accountability again.
In conclusion, I endorse what my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North said about impartiality. We all want an impartial civil service. I warn that we must be very careful in the run-up to elections because that is when Governments are most tempted to take short cuts, and they must not do that. I have written to Sir Robin Butler about the Cabinet Committee which is serviced by civil servants. I am sure that every hon. Member would seek the reassurance that civil servants will not be used for party political purposes.
I do not believe that the civil service has been politicised, although some worrying incidents have been reported by the First Division Association. I believe that civil servants would be able to serve another Administration and I hope that they will have the opportunity to do so quite soon. The existence of a code with an independent appeals system which is backed by statute will underpin this great British institution and help to maintain the impartiality, non-partisanship, honesty and efficiency of the British civil service.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): We have had a very timely debate, because, as the House and all aficionados of the subject who are gathered here tonight know, we have had the first White Paper and the highly regarded report from the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) who, as one of my hon. Friends said, gave wise leadership to the sub-committee that prepared the report.
We have also had the Government's response in the shape of the second White Paper, which accepted the proposed code and went into discussions on the possibility

of legislation. We hope to settle the code after further discussion before the summer recess and have it promulgated in the second half of the year. Included in the consultations will be further discussions with the Select Committee and the Opposition spokesman, obviously taking into account all views that have been expressed during the debate.
The debate was not only timely but has been conducted mainly in a relatively bipartisan spirit, for which, in the long run, both sides of the House will be grateful. Where it was not bipartisan or where political points were made, I accept that they were serious and not irrelevant.
We are all aware of the importance of the subject. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) regretted that so few were here to discuss it, and so do I. He characterised himself as a gatecrasher to a rather small coterie who were used to discussing the matter. That is a pity, and I am glad that he was not a party pooper and is still in his place, as he said that he might have to leave the Chamber.
The seriousness of the subject was reflected in all the contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a number of points. I was disappointed by the relentlessly negative approach that he seemed to adopt, and I would contrast that markedly with the Select Committee report, which was positive about much of what the Government have done in the past 15 years. It is a pity that he did not take a more balanced view of the true picture.
I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien). My right hon. Friend and I are certainly concerned that there should be good morale in the civil service. Any such group of Ministers is bound to have great regard for that fact, and any thought that there might be poor morale gives us genuine concern.

Mr. McNamara: Do something about it.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I have to say.
As the Select Committee said, morale is bound to suffer during periods of continuous change, but that is not a reason for not embarking on those changes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) said, the public sector cannot be exempt from changes, nor can the private sector. We cannot ring fence the public sector and say that it must be exempt from changes that are happening elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North exaggerated the problem of morale. The Select Committee report used the expression "unease". The hon. Gentleman used very different words and mentioned a blanket of fear. Although we are concerned to maintain good morale and we were disappointed that it was bad, the hon. Gentleman has clearly exaggerated the feeling inside the civil service.

Mr. McNamara: I assure the Minister that if I felt morale in the civil service was high, I would say so and I would praise the Government of the day, but I know from my experience, and from those in the civil service whom I have met and know personally, that there is a blanket of fear, which results from their not knowing what


will happen to them and from the ethos of the public service that they entered being undermined by the Government.

Mr. Horam: No, I must disagree totally with the hon. Gentleman. That really is not true. I am glad to see that he is winking. I think that he is making a point about which he is not wholly serious.

Mr. McNamara: It is true.

Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about pay delegation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South, (Mr Brooke), who has great experience in personnel management. I think that he would agree that the delegation of pay in the civil service brings closer a matching between performance and reward, which will be wholly beneficial to an efficient civil service. That is what we intend. I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will find that his fears about low pay and so on are in many respects groundless. In fact, pay may be higher for many civil servants as a result of that approach.
The hon. Gentleman referred to contracts. Contracts for senior civil servants do not change the existing terms of employment and they will not expose civil servants to political or other pressures. As now, decisions on performance will be a matter for departmental management, not Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South gave a marvellous evocation of the real qualities of the civil service—"elegaic" was one word that might be used. He relished it like an old wine that he loved well over many years; that was the feeling that came across. I liked his analogy of civil servants as regulars and Ministers as territorials. I was very glad of the speech that he made.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) made some interesting and serious points about information technology, the importance of which I fully accept. As he pointed out, I too have a particular interest in that area. I understand his point about EDS, but it is not my immediate responsibility; it is the immediate responsibility of the Treasury. None the less, I have taken careful note of what he said and I shall look into the matter. In a recent report the National Audit Office pointed out that over a 10-year period EDS would save the taxpayer £225 million. That is not an inconsiderable sum. I put that into the balance against the considerations that he legitimately raised.
The hon. Gentleman also made a fair point about the Sainsbury scheme. As he will know, my right hon. Friend and I are responsible not only for the public service, but for science policy, including technology and engineering. I am interested in that scheme and I shall certainly take account of what he said.
The hon. Gentleman regretted the disappearance of a serious, restrained, competent discussion—those were his words—on many issues. He cited disastrous economic policy. That was a rather unfortunate example. He may have seen the article by Wynne Godley in the Financial Times recently. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter over many years and he knows well that Wynne Godley is certainly not a Conservative supporter. He is a distinguished economist and the hon. Gentleman will be

satisfied of his mathematical and statistical qualities. After criticising Government economic policy since 1970, he has had to admit that during the past two years Government economic policy has been virtually perfect and that it would simply be vulgar to carry on criticising the Government. Government economic policy has been virtually perfect in the past two years. That is why now, for the first time in my life, we have an export-led economy with real prospects in the world. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. I am glad to have support from quite independent economists on that subject. There is nothing like a good economist who is running his own business; I speak from considerable experience. I am glad that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South concluded that he was not a pessimist on these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about secondments and two-way movement between the civil service and the private sector. I have some figures for him. Long-term secondments have increased threefold since 1979. In 1993, there were 400 outward secondments and 200 inward long-term secondments. In 1994, just over 1,700 civil servants undertook a secondment of some kind outside the civil service, so it is going pretty well.
My hon. Friend also advocated fewer Departments and fewer Ministers. There are, of course, no fewer than 89 Ministers at the moment, although people tend to say that there are far more than there were 15 years ago. There are not, of course. There were 86 Ministers in 1979, and there are 89 now. My hon. Friend may have been thinking of the time in Disraeli's period when there were only 24 Ministers—13 in the Cabinet and 11 outside. I have to tell him that the 11 outside included a Minister for the Horse, who was the Earl of Bradford. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend really wants to go back to that particular period, but I have some sympathy with him for his general position.

Mr. David Hunt: Only for three weeks.

Mr. Horam: Indeed. A Ministry with two Ministers is infinitely more efficient and productive than a Ministry with three, four or five Ministers. [Interruption.] I do not know how many the Department of Health has.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington also raised the constitutional role of the civil service. He pointed to the code and seemed to be saying that my right hon. Friend had not made a clear distinction between the various parts of the code, and was talking about the qualities of the civil service rather than the constitutional position. The fact is that the code, which is excellent, spells out the clear relationship between Ministers, the Crown and the civil service. It also says, as has been pointed out, that the civil service acts subject to the provisions of the code. That meets squarely the point that he was making.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington asked about Lord Nolan, and I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has written to Lord Nolan, sending him a copy of the proposed code, and the Government will, of course, take account of any point that the Nolan committee may make about that.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh on absenteeism. The Occupational Health Service, which is one of our agencies, is taking a look at that. There are differences between the Departments that we cannot wholly explain at the moment. None the less, the point that he made is relevant. I noted his other points, although absences are not necessarily always related to sickness.
The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North made a serious and good speech about the potential politicisation of the civil service. I recognise the threat that he outlined, but the Select Committee itself—the hon. Member for Durham, North reaffirmed this—did not think that the civil service had been politicised. I do not think that anyone seriously thinks that it has been, and that is precisely what the code, which now has all-party support, has been drawn up to deal with.
I thank the hon. Member for Durham, North for his kind words. Neither of us expected to find ourselves in this situation after 26 years in politics. We are where we are, however, and I pay tribute to the code that he produced. As he says, it is concise and comprehensive and applies, importantly, to all the civil service.
The work of the Select Committee shows the improved relationship that has occurred between Parliament and Government since Select Committees were established some 20 years ago. The iterative process that has occurred over the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report has been profoundly helpful both to Parliament and Government as a whole.
The Government's policy, as we know, is continuity in values and change in performance. We have, I think, shown that we are concerned—that the whole House is concerned—about the continuing good value of the civil service. We have, however, achieved a remarkable change in the performance of the civil service, and the public service as a whole, in the past 20 years.
I pay tribute to the civil servants who have taken part in that change, as well as the Ministers who have pushed it along. Ultimately it was the civil servants who bore the heat and the burden, and I feel that the main tribute should be paid to them for all the effort that they put into making the reforms work. I believe that we now have the best public administration in the world, and—these are not my words, but those of Simon Jenkins in The Times the other day—the most cost-effective and efficient.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Neuro-surgery Services (Thames Region)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

10 pm

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Tonight's debate takes place against a background of chaos—the chaos of cuts, closures and confusion in the national health service in London and the Thames region—and in the wake of the tragic death of a patient for whom a bed could not be found in greater London.
On the radio today, the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir J. Gorst) described the consultation about cuts and closures in his area as a sham. A fortnight ago, the Minister responsible for the citizens charter—who has just left the Chamber—said he was astonished that there was nowhere in London where one of his constituents could be treated. The Secretary of State for Health, however, seems to suggest that there is no problem in London and the south-east.
Let me remind hon. Members of the tragic events that led to my request for this debate. On Monday 6 March, at about 10.55 pm, Malcolm Murray was involved in a road accident. An ambulance was called at 10.57 pm, and arrived about 10 minutes later to take the patient to Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup, arriving at about midnight. While doctors, nurses and ancillary staff fought to stabilise the patient and save his life, the senior house officer—the junior doctor—spent hours on the telephone trying to find a specialist neuro-surgery bed.
The nearest neuro-surgery unit—at Brook general hospital, with which the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is familiar—was closed that evening: it was not accepting referrals, because of an outbreak of gastric flu. I understand that the junior doctor contacted some nine units in the Thames region, and eventually a place was found; as we now know, the nearest that could be found was in Leeds. I am aware that an inquiry is currently taking place.
At about 5 am, an RAF Sea King helicopter travelled from Wattisham to Sidcup to airlift the patient to Leeds, where he arrived at about 8 am. He went into theatre at about 9 am, and was there for several hours. After surgery, his condition was critical and, tragically, he subsequently died.
In advance of the inquiry, I wish to pay tribute to the staff at Queen Mary's, Sidcup, who did all in their power to save the patient's life. I also pay tribute to the RAF for its rapid response, and to staff at Leeds general infirmary, who also did all in their power to save the patient.
During that week, in a damage limitation exercise, the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Murray required a highly specialised form of treatment with which Leeds was particularly able to help".—[Official Report, 9 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 454.]
Leeds infirmary is indeed a specialist unit, which had the skill and expertise to treat the patient, but that skill and expertise is not unique to Leeds; it was available in the nine or 10 specialist neuro-surgery units in Greater London and the south-east, where no bed could be found for a patient from south-east London.
In a letter to me, the Under-Secretary of State for Health wrote that it was often
very difficult to strike a balance between wasteful over-provision of services and effective use of the resources available.
In a parliamentary question, I asked what was the capacity and occupancy of those units on the night concerned; that information, surely, would show whether there was wasteful over-provision and over-capacity. The Minister said:
Information on units' capacity and occupancy rates on the night of 6 March is not available centrally."—[Official Report, 13 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 409.]
If that information is not available to the Minister, I do not see how he could make the statement that he did in his letter to me.
The Minister also suggested in his letter that one in six existing beds is inappropriately used, and therefore not always available for the life-threatening emergencies for which they were primarily intended. Is he suggesting that, perhaps, some consultant surgeons in London were refusing to take admissions, waiting for a more interesting case? Again, I should like to know the substance of what he said.
What is beyond dispute is that the south-east quadrant has been poorly served in neuro-sciences because of uncertainty about the future. For example, the Brook hospital has had great difficulty in recruiting a neuro-anaesthetist.
I accept the argument that any specialist centre needs a high volume to gain expertise, not just for the surgeons but for the whole team. One health service planner in my region has suggested that a critical mass would be a unit with five or six intensive care beds. I understand that the Maudsley has two, and the Brook three. Both size and uncertainty may have contributed to recruitment problems.
The Government's favoured option appears to be to move the Brook further into central London and so further away from south-east London and Kent, the area that it is supposed to serve. Despite the Secretary of State's recent statement to the House—in which she said:
A generation ago, people travelled from the home counties to the London hospitals"—
now:
Patients and GPs rightly say that they would rather have treatment close to home than travel to London.—[Official Report, 20 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 33.]
I do not dispute the need for centres of excellence, but why not one in south-east London? If the Brook is to close, why could not neurology and neuro-surgery facilities be located at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Woolwich or Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup? They are extremely convenient for the M2, the M20 and the M25. Indeed, the Queen Elizabeth has its own helipad.
In a recent debate, the Secretary of State asked how we could deal with the issue of hon. Members having great affection for their local hospitals, which cannot provide the critical mass for sub-specialties and the costly equipment needed for state-of-the-art services. In Greenwich, the Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary's could house the Brook units. North of the river, Oldchurch, with its accident and emergency and maternity and gynaecology intact, could also continue to provide neuro-surgery services. We do not need to move the units into central London to provide critical mass.
I have mentioned Oldchurch, which is across the river from my area. I understand that there has been consultation, but no commitment to the number of neuro beds or facilities. My information might be wrong and my fears unfounded, but I can tell the Minister that they are shared by people in that locality. Perhaps tonight he could go some way towards giving them some assurances.
My experience and that of my colleagues representing south-east London appears to be replicated by that of hon. Members representing north-east London. The hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has been a consistent campaigner for Oldchurch hospital. In the past, he has been supported in his campaigns by other Conservative Members, including the hon. Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). Indeed, in a debate some years ago, the hon. Member for Hornchurch, in opposing the closure of Oldchurch, called on the Secretary of State to
desist from this unnecessary, irrelevant and expensive exercise".—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1094.]
The reorganisation plans were also vigorously opposed by my former colleagues, Jo Richardson and Bryan Gould. Recently, my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham (Ms Church) and for Barking (Ms Hodge) have told the House of their concerns about more recent plans for the Oldchurch hospital. As the hon. Member for Romford previously told the House about closure plans:
the community health council, the London boroughs of Havering and of Barking and Dagenham, trades unions, doctors, patients, other organisations and members of the public have been loud in their disapproval."—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1091.]
While the proposals for total closure may have been shelved, the rundown of the hospital has continued, despite vociferous local opposition. The Government appear to have ignored the views and wishes of the community in one of the largest health districts in London by agreeing to transfer accident and emergency services miles away to Harold Wood, with an insufficient number of additional beds to satisfy the in-patient demand that will be generated.
A series of inevitable consequences has been set in train, and the consultation exercise becomes a sham. Many of the regions where accident and emergency services are threatened score high on any social deprivation index. The Black report in 1980 showed conclusively that accidents are class-related and that,
when people work in hazardous conditions, or children in unsafe housing experience higher accident rates, it is the speed and the quality of response of the health service that can make all the difference to whether injury is fatal, or whether it results in permanent or temporary disability.
Early response was crucial in the situation at Orpington hospital and at Queen Mary's hospital, Sidcup.
Oldchurch hospital has a high neuro-surgical case load compared with other units in the Thames region. It could be expanded on site. The beds currently closed could be reopened with increased contract income. In those circumstances, the move of the unit either to Royal London hospital or Harold Wood hospital makes no sense, but that is the likely outcome.
Neuro-surgery services serving east London, north and south of the Thames, could end up moving further into central London. In the south-west of London, what is the

future for the world-renowned centre of excellence at Atkinson Morley hospital, over which a threat has been hanging for many years?
Over a long period, together with Greenwich council and the community health council, I have expressed the view that the regional cardio-thoracic and neuro-science departments should continue to be located at Brook hospital. When it was clear that the Ministry of Defence intended to vacate the more modern facilities at Queen Elizabeth military hospital, local Members of Parliament of both parties supported a planned transfer of services from the Brook to Queen Elizabeth hospital.
The regional speciality services based at the Brook have established an enviable reputation, pioneered much innovative work, and been responsible for many medical advances. That has been achieved despite the fact that staff have been working in a less than adequate physical environment, in a hospital that has had the threat of closure hanging over it for some 15 to 20 years, and where staff have been demoralised by the progressive rundown of their departments. But as the community health council has said in its response to the consultation document:
The letters we receive from neuro and cardiac patients from a wide area and the enthusiastic fund-raising and support work carried out locally both testify to the excellent service carried out by these departments".
I share the community health council's concern that the option of moving the regional specialties to the Queen Elizabeth was not even considered in the post-Tomlinson speciality review. The reason given was that the Queen Elizabeth was not a national health service hospital. It was not at the time, but discussions were well under way between the Department of Health and the MOD, and between the MOD and the local health authority. It will be an NHS hospital in the near future. That proposal should be considered seriously now.
The most recent consultation document says that other health authorities are already planning to send patients to the proposed central London centres, but, as the Queen Elizabeth option was not included as a possibility, other commissioners have not been in a position to consider all the options.
The Minister must be aware of the growing fears and concerns, and of the dissatisfaction expressed by consultants about the plans for the Maudsley-King's unit, both in the transitional period and in the long term. Services from the Brook will be shoehorned into King's, which is already unable to cope with demand, as evidenced by the deferral of the proposed closure of Dulwich hospital. Services are to be shoehorned into that unit, together with 44 Maudsley neurology beds, without easy access to medicine, surgery or intensive care. Doubts still remain about the ability to provide the capital investment needed for a long-term solution.
In response to the consultation document, the community health council states:
In addition, it is claimed in justification for the proposed move of Neurosciences to Kings, that proximity to the psychiatric services at the Maudsley will be advantageous. The CHC has not heard any arguments supporting this theory. While cross referrals may take place, they are unlikely to be greater between Neurosciences and Psychiatry than between many other speciality areas.
It is also difficult to understand why the Tomlinson and post-Tomlinson reviews concluded by recommending that specialist services be moved into London (though the reviews differed in the


preferred destination) when these recommendations go against the two main aims of the exercise: to move services out of London and to ensure that services followed patients.
Greenwich residents have a higher level of cardiac problems than most of their neighbours and accidents necessitating neuro-surgery occur more in this area near to major road systems. The proposal however is to move services into London and away from patients.
There appears to be complete confusion and little agreement about future plans. Why are some cardiac beds to be transferred to Guy's/St. Thomas' and some to King's? The Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham consultation document shed no light on this. Neurosciences will be split, as the King's development will not be ready to receive them for at least two years after the Brook closes. Patients will need to go to the Maudsley for neurology and to King's for surgery. I wonder whether that will that count as two patient episodes. In any event, it is neither cost-effective nor in the interests of patients or staff.
There are already problems for my constituents, with paediatric neurology services being split between Guy's/St. Thomas' and King's—so much so that paediatric consultants in Greenwich are recommending that future contracts for acute neurology and neurosurgery be placed at Great Ormond Street, where services can be provided under one roof.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to recalculate the cost of the proposed move of the regional specialty services and contrast it with the cost of transferring those services from the Brook to the new Queen Elizabeth NHS hospital. While doing so, will he perhaps tell us why, in the transfer, it is proposed that 10 beds will disappear?

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) for the opportunity to inform the House about the important matter that he has chosen for this Adjournment debate. I begin by offering the family of Mr. Malcolm Murray my sincere condolences following his recent tragic death.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in his place. Indeed, he ministered to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who, although he did not refer to the need for ear, nose and throat facilities in his constituency, seemed to require them this evening. I congratulate him on getting through his speech despite his evident difficulties.
I deal first with the Murray case. It leads to a number of concerns, and I should like to take this opportunity to deal with them. The transfer of Mr. Murray from Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup to Leeds during his NHS treatment for serious head injuries on 7 March has rightly led not only—partially—to this Adjournment debate but to other expressions of serious concern about the availability of appropriate facilities for his treatment and care.
The House will by now be well aware that, on 8 March, South Thames regional health authority initiated an investigation into the case and the key issues arising from it. South Thames RHA has already given a commitment to publish its report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health as quickly as possible. I understand that the report will not be long delayed.
I am sure that the House and the hon. Member for Woolwich will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the findings of the panel that has been appointed to report, but I should like to take this opportunity to make three points about the case and the circumstances that pertained on the night of 6/7 March.
The patient, Mr. Murray, required neurosurgery and intensive facilities. The intensive care facilities at or adjacent to the 10 hospitals in the Thames regions with neurosurgery facilities were certainly all very busy on the night in question. That does not, however, rule out the possibility that, with better bed management, a neurosurgical bed with intensive care support might have been made available.
On the general question of overall provision of neurosurgery facilities, which is of course important and sets the context of the debate, a review of regional records shows that, in 1994, all South Thames residents requiring neurosurgery were treated in hospitals in the Thames regions or in Southampton, which is more convenient for some residents in the south-west part of the South Thames region. More specifically, I understand that the consultant who received Mr. Murray in Leeds praised the way in which he had been treated before and during his journey. It is important to set that matter on the record.
As I have said, however, more detailed public consideration of this case will have to await the publication of the panel's report, but Ministers are being kept abreast of the key findings and issues raised, which will inform other decisions meanwhile. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, on that particular matter, I am not in a position to go further this evening.
I turn now to the broader question raised by the hon. Gentleman about reviews of neuroscience. The House will be aware of the independent review of neuroscience in London, which was published in June 1993, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The work of that review group has been carried forward in South Thames since October 1994 by another neuroscience review group, with the full involvement of clinicians. The analysis undertaken by that review group was reported to chief executives of health authorities in South Thames on Wednesday 22 March.
That analysis is, of course, connected with the proposals for the future of acute services in north and south-east London, which are now with Ministers for a decision. I am confident that our forthcoming decision on acute services in north and south-east London will provide the context for the rapid resolution of the issue of how best to provide the balance of tertiary neuroscience services required in the Thames regions.
I take this opportunity totally to refute the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that consultation is a sham. It is far from that. It is a proper consultation process in the fullest sense. The findings of the consultation process will be seriously regarded by Ministers, and properly considered, and decisions will be brought forward in due course in a proper way.
I am, of course, very much aware of the specific concerns about the robustness of neuro-anaesthetic cover at the Brook hospital, pending the taking of those decisions. Indeed, not too long ago, I had the benefit of a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham in my office to discuss this very matter, and I listened to the points that they made


extremely carefully. I made further inquiries, and I am pleased to be able to say to both of them tonight that those inquiries proved fruitful.
As the result of all that, steps have now been taken to strengthen cover, with two appropriately trained senior registrars who are now available for the Brook. That means that the Brook neuro-surgery unit will be able to remain operational until new, improved facilities in the long-term are available elsewhere.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my colleagues and I listened to the important points that he made. I hope that he will welcome my response as suitable, and that it allays a number of his concerns.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I say how much agreement there is on this side of the House with what the hon. Member for Woolwich said about the Brook, and how great a welcome there will be in and around the Brook for the announcement that my hon. Friend the Minister has made. The work load carried by the consultant anaesthetist has been extremely heavy, and everyone owes her a debt of gratitude for what she has managed to achieve.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich for allowing that intervention—

Mr. Austin-Walker: rose—

Mr. Malone: —and of course I shall be delighted to allow him a similar intervention.

Mr. Austin-Walker: I simply want to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said, and to express my gratitude for the response.

Mr. Malone: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; the matter was indeed important. I must tell him that there are occasions on which Ministers are actually keen to reach the right conclusion, and I hope that this has been one of them.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that Mr. Murray required intensive care in addition to neuro-surgical services. The availability of intensive care unit services was just as much an issue in that case was the availability of neuro-surgery beds.
In 1992, the Department commissioned a report from Professor Klim MacPherson of the health promotion sciences unit at the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine on the provision of intensive care services in England. That was published on 7 February.
On 21 March, the Secretary of State met the presidents of the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Nursing, as well as representatives of the Intensive Care Society and the British Association of Critical Care Nurses to discuss the findings of Professor

MacPherson's report and the way forward. My right hon. Friend brought that meeting forward, because she too was concerned about the implications of the events that had unfolded.
As a result, it has been decided to establish a professional working group to seek professional consensus on the criteria for admission to and discharge from intensive care. In addition, the Department is funding the intensive care national audit and research centre, to set up an audit facility and to maintain a United Kingdom database of patients in intensive care. The outcome of all that work will provide better information about the way in which intensive care units should be used to help inform practice in that important area.
The hon. Member for Woolwich asked what had been discovered about the occupancy of intensive care beds, especially those connected with neuro-surgery units, on the night in question. He will understand that I cannot answer that question specifically tonight, but I can assure him that such matters will be part of the subject of the review that is under way. When the report is published, in what I hope will be a short time, the matter will be dealt with, and the hon. Gentleman will have the answer that he seeks.
The tragic events of 6 and 7 March serve to underline the urgency and importance of the work already in hand to define and facilitate the best future pattern of neuro-science and intensive care facilities in the Thames regions. I believe that everybody acknowledges that, although people may have their individual views about how that destination should eventually be reached. It is true that existing patterns of services have served the community well, but both disciplines are at a watershed in their development.
In the context of what I have said this evening, I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich will concede that the professional views widely expressed across London agree that a reconfiguration of specialties is extremely important if the excellence of medical care that London deserves, which should be the norm in this city, is to be preserved.
That aim was what informed the debate that resulted in the Tomlinson report and the inquiry undertaken by the specialty neuro-surgical review in 1993. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the importance of taking those matters forward, and the fact that the consultation process that is under way, which I shall consider soon, is an important step in the process.
I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure the hon. Gentleman that, in the round, we are looking at such matters in the most serious way. As for the particular points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham raised, of course we consider the specifics when they are raised before us. I hope that he thinks that my response this evening has been constructive.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.